Untitled

Auckland Star, Volume IX, Issue 2565, 27 June 1878, Page 2

THE irrepressible Mr Barton, whose quarrels with the Supreme Court judges have become notorious, has been urging upon the Government that it is their duty to initiate a Court of Inquiry for the investigation of the conduct of Chief Justice Prendergast and Mr Justice Richmond. In support of this opinion, he recently addressed a letter to the Government, quoting a number of authorities in. support of the Executive action he demanded. Sir George Grey replied, on behalf of the Ministry, that MiBarton should, aa suggested by the Dunediu Bar, (irst appeal to Parliament. Mr Barton, thereupon, expressed his deep regret at the decision arrived at by the Cabinet and quoted further authorities, which he believed would bcarout his opinion. The final reply of tho Government has now been sent by Mr Ballance, in the absence or Sir George Grey, and sets forth that " the Government have desired to give due weight to the authorities quoted in your letter, but they cannot recognise that those authorities support your argument that the decision already come to in your case should be reversed. Indeed, members believe that they have, each for himself, investigated the matter of complaint as far as possible with the material at their command, in order to determine whether they ought to oppose or facilitate the interference of Parliament, thus complying with the rule laid down by Tod, and that their decision was arrived at after consideration subsequent to such investigation." Mr Barton has now the option of petitioning Parliament for an inquiry, and Ministers, having suggested that course, will no doubt support him in obtaining the investigation, which was last session refused by a large majority. The reports published at various times, recounting the scenes between Mr Barton, and the Wellington Judges, give the impression that Mr Barton's bearing towards the Court has been aggravating and derogatory to the dignity of the Bench. Up has openly charged or insinuated strong bias on the part of the Judges, which if true would, as Mr Justice Prendergast on one occasion observed, render them unlit for their high office. Admitting this, however, it must be borne in mind that Mr Barton is clearly acting, whether rightly or wrongly, under a strong sense of wrong. He is a barrister of large experience and high standing, and it can hardly be supposed that he would " hurl charges so grave, so damaging to his own practice, and which have brought down upon him the indignities of imprisonment, unless convinced of the truth of his assertions, and spurred on by a sense of injnstice. It is contrary, therefore, to all accepted principles of equity that he should be denied a searching and impartial investigation. Tho supreme Court of the colony must be sacred from even the shadow of suspicion. We fully expect to find both the judges who are implicated in MiBarton's charges coming forward next session and uniting in the demand for inquiry. Mr Barton's position has to some extent received public suppcrfc by his return to Parliament while confined in gaol on an order issued by. these judges, and the whole affair, as it now stands, is a public scandal.