Untitled

Pahiatua Herald, Volume II, Issue 169, 2 July 1894, Page 2

The finding of the Fox Commission and tho report of Commissioner O’Hara Smith are now public property. Tho conclusions arrived at by Mr Smith are to tho effect that the tendency of the evidenoe shows that it was obtained from either Mr Cadrnan or Sir Patrick Buckley or from the messenger, and that the evidence indicates more particularly the Hon. Sir Patrick Buckley or his messenger Sandbrook. The two Cabinet ministers have denied on oath tlmt [ho information came from thorn either directly or indirectly. Mr 13. T. Gillon, tho editor of the Evening Post, has sent in a sworn affidavit that he did not obtain the original letter of Colonel Fox either directly or indirectly from tho Ministers implicated or tho messenger. So far this is satisfactory,

and the country will accept, the statements of the Ministers backed up as I they are by the affidavit of Mr Gillon, ! but we do not see that any abologuy can bo hurled at Mr O’Hara Smith for the conclusions he has arrived at. The finding is either in accordance with the evidence or it is not. If it is a judicial conclusion wo cannot m*o fchato any blame attaches to him. We are in no way concern'd in the defence ; of Mr Smith, hut it seems to us | childish to say that because lie was a subordinate officer he was inoom ! potent to poform the task set him. Appointing a subordinate shows un i mistakoably that a subordinate official if not, suspected was at any rate thought j

to be the delinquent, and who better ■'•bio to trace such an offender than a subordinate oflicor conversant with what is euphemistically termed “ the tricks of tha trade.” The appointment of Mr Smith, therefore, to our mind absolves the Premier of the charge that he has been negotiating for the retirement of Sir Patrick Buckley, and hoped to effect his purpose by the Fox Commission. We stand by the Post in its action. The sacred duties of a journalist, and the duties are sacred, and when trust is reposed in him, have been fully upheld by the editor, and his action in exonerating those alleged to be guilty desorvescommendation. There appears, however, to us a little more is required of the Evening Post, and that is, that the other member of its staff, Mr E. D. Hoben, should, like Mr Gillon, make an affidavit and to the same purposo and extent. Mr Hoben is the only one of the witnesses cited to appear before the Commission who has not spoken, and an affidavit by him would strengthen the affidavit of his chief and leave absolutely no room for doubt as to the innocence of those alleged guilty by the Commissioner. We think it is a positive necessity that this affidavit by Mr Hoben should be made and attached to the other documents. We can conceive many ways in which a smart journalist could obtain the information published by the Post other than the mannor in which Mr Commissioner Smith says it was get, and therefore we are quite ready to accept the statement of the Hon. Mr Cadman and Sir Patrick Buckley. While we support the Post in the stand taken with regard i» the Commission we can in no wise endorse its churlish insults to the Premier and the Ministry. When the Post talks about the very existence of the Ministry being at its mercy over this matter our contemporary gets contemptibly childish. It will be a sorry day for the country when the existence of a ministry depends upon the action of a newspaper. For the Evening Post to have acted otherwise than it has done in exonerating Ministers, would have been a culpable dereliction of the plainest duties of a journalist, and to prate about the existence of a ministry depending upon the peformance of those duties is silly in the extreme. All things considered we think the effects of the Fox Commission will be beneficial, for we think it would be safe to predict that for the future State documents will be treated with the utmost respset by all grades of officials. It is painful to reflect that it has been necessary to set up the Fox Commission.