MR WATSON'S CONTEMPT Of PARLIAMENT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5667, 11 September 1896, Page 5 (Supplement)

MR WATSON'S CONTEMPT Of PARLIAMENT.

The examination of the President of the Bank oi; New Zealand by the Banking Committee of the House of Eepresentatives is now drawing to a close. It has been so protracted that it already seems a long time since Mr Watson was brought up at the bar of the House, and fined £500 for contempt of Parliament by refusing to reply to questions affecting the accounts of customers of the bank. Since then Mr "Watson has repeatedly refused to supply particulars of private business, , and the Committee has held out threats of taking further proceedings against him on. account of these refusals.. It is to be hoped that the Committee will do nothing of the sort. As a matter of fact, the questioning of the Bank President on the subject of private accounts has degenerated into a mere farce. We find Mr George Hutchison trying to elicit information regarding Government' remittances through the Colonial Bank and the Minister of Lands retaliating by putting an offen-sively-worded question regarding some property in which Mr. Hutchison is interested. When things reach such a pass as this it is the Committee and not the witness that is bringing Parliament into contempt. There is, however, a sound reason why no further proceedings should be taken against the President or other officers of the Bank for declining to disclose details of private business. We have contended all along that it was improper to seek to extort such information, and now we find that just about the time our Parliament was dealing severely with Mr Watson for his " contumacy " an English Judge was laying down a legal doctrine in accordance with our view of the case. At the Manchester Assizes, early in July last, Mr Justice Cave held that a banker must not reveal a client's account, even to the Official Receiver in a bankruptcy case, save under absolute legal order. The Manchester (guardian, commenting on this contribution to what it calls "the ethics of the confidential professions," referred to the cabled news from New Zealand regarding the fine imposed on Mr Watson, and expressed the opinion that " the New Zealand Government is ill-advised in pressing for this revelation to a parliamentary committee. It would be well if a cut-and-dried legal order were the only basis of inquiry." There can be no doubt that -the English, decision quoted would rule any similar case arising in this country, and although Parliament is, to- a large extent, independent of the law, by virtue of being the highest Court in the land, members and Ministers ought to recognise those standards of professional honour that have the sanction of the highest legal authorities and that are so essential to the well-being of society.