THE PELORUS GUARDIAN and Miners’ Advocate. TUESDAY, 29TH AUGUST, 1911. COOK ISLANDS INQUIRY.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 22, Issue 67, 29 August 1911, Page 4

THE PELORUS GUARDIAN and Miners’ Advocate. TUESDAY, 29TH AUGUST, 1911. COOK ISLANDS INQUIRY.

The discussion in the House on'Sir Robert Stout’s report on his secret inquiry at Rarotonga is an instance of the hopelessness of expecting from a “ party ” gathering an unbiased decision on any public matter. With one exception—Dr Buck —not one of those who took part in the debate have any personal knowledge of the actual conditions that prevail in the islands; and the report of the Chief Justice, biased and inaccurate in its statements as to the state of affairs as between the Commissioner and the white residents, and woefully misleading in'its deductions, merely added to the members’ bewilderment as to what is the real position. And the introduction of political feeling further complicated matters. For the most part, members were content to take the Chief Justice’s word that all was well, that the Commissioner is the vary best man the Government could have chosen, and that everything in the island garden is perfectly lovely. But the matter is of much greater importance than members appear to think. The Cook Islands are becoming a very valuable possession, but their progress is being cheeked by unsympathetic legislation administered in an exceedingly crude manner. The Chief Justice is merely a human being, with the usual failings and idiosyncracies of the species, plus a big score of stinging criticism to wipe off. Hence his report. It is humanly impossible for any person to form an unbiased opinion under such circumstances, and the conditions of life at the islands are so vastly different to those in New Zealand that it is hardly less than presumption for any person to attempt to judge as between one set of statements and another except after at least twelve months’ residence there. Under the circumstances, therefore, it is doubtful if the House could have come to any other conclusion than

i that ■'tEiere was little to complain about. The Government’s instructions to Sir Robert were that the gentlemen making the complaints \ which were the motif of the Commission were not to be examined upon oath, though Sir James Carroll, the Acting-Premier, was already advised that the complainants would not tender evidence except pn oath. The value of the Commission, and of the Government’s desire for an impartial inquiry, can thus be gauged by those who are interested in political morals and in the necessity for these being reasonably decent.