A knotty point was raised at the last minute of the elections between Mr. Piddington, x.c, and Mr. Hughes, K.c., the Prime Minister. Some nine years ago, the latter, as Attorney-General in a Labour Government, was moved: with a desire to appoint, Mr. Piddington to the High Court bench, and did so, After strongly worded protests from the Bar Councils in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, Mr. Piddington resigned the honour before he was actually sworn in. Since then, he has been Chairman of the Inter-State Com. mission, and has held several lucrative Government appointments. Up to the last moment he seemed to be on the most friendly and intimate terms with the Prime Minister, though apparently anxious to enter Parliament. He stood at a bye-election not so long ago and lost his deposit. Suddenly Mr. Piddington came out to challenge Mr. Hughes for a new division which had been created, and seemed a safe Nationalist one. Mr. Piddington had many unpleasant things to say, and asa final bon. bouche, a few days before the elections,. Mr. Piddington - charged Mr. Hughes with trying to pack the judiciary, and produced a letter received by Mr. "X" from Mr. Hughes over nine years ago, -in which Mr. Hughes asked Mr. "X" to_asscertain if he could what were Mr. Piddington's general views on the relations of the States and the wealth. He wanted to know whether Mr. Piddington was a "rabid States Righter." Apparently he was told and the appointment followed.
This action of Mr. Hughes was now seized upon as proof that he sought to pack the High Court bench. -In actual fact, most of the judges in Australia have been active in politics, and their opinions are well known, and if their party is in power they get appointed, and if it is not they remain in politics until it is. Mr. Hughes may have been in error in wanting te appoint Mr. Piddington, who many declared was temperamentally unfitted for the position, but he cannot be blamed for trying to ascerfafn generally his bias on what to the Labour Party was an important question. Had he ap pointed Mr. Piddington first and later found that he was a_ rabid State-Righter he would have helped te wreck his own Party. The question of political honour is not all on one side. It transpired that Mr. "X" was no less a person that the brother-in-law of Mr. Pidding-ton, and that the letter was shown him nine years ago in confidence. and that it has been made public without the knowledge or consent of the actual person to whom Mr. Hughes wrote the confidential communication. The brother-in-law himself has written to make this clear. Mr. Hughes defeated Mr. Piddington by nearly 5,000 votes, but the incident leaves an unpleas-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.