The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, and The Echo. THE PRIVY COUNCIL AND THE COURT OF APPEAL.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 154, 30 June 1903, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, and The Echo.

THE PRIVY COUNCIL AND THE COURT OF APPEAL.

For the cause that lae'es assistance, For the M-)o:to that needs resistance, For the future in the distance, And tlie <jood that ice can do. TUESDAY. JUNE 30, 1903.

It is, of course, gratifying to our Chief Justice and to the members of his Court to receive the assurance of the Lord Chancellor that they are labouring under a "total misapprehension" as to th.c judgment of the Privy Council in the Porinm case. Lord Ilalsbury lias informed the House of Lords that Lord Macmighteu aud the Privy Council

Judges "never intended to make any attack whatever on the Court of Appeal in New Zealand."' More than this, the. learned Judges never intended "in any way to comment on the character of, or conduct of. the proceedings of the Court of Appeal." As this is so. the Lord Chancellor desires that this statement of the case inav he conveyed to

the New Zealand Court, ami we presume

that we may regard this as th.c nearest

approach to an apology which official dignity will permit, for the "grievous and

unexampled provocation"' (hat our Judges have received.

At the same time it is only fair to Sir Robert Stout and our Supreme Court Judges to remember that the construction they placed upon the Privy Council decision was the ordinary interpretation of remarkably plain and vigorous language. The amended defence put in by the Solicitor-General before our Appeal Court—an amendment made with the consent of both parties—was described by the Lords of the Privy Council as "a medley of allegations incapable of proof, and statements derogatory to the Court." Sir Robert Stout easily disposed of this accusation as to matters

of fact; but there was worse to come

"The proposition advanced on behalf of the Crown" (that under certain circumstances the Court could not interfere), says Lord Maenanghten, "is certainly not ilattering to the dignify or the independence of the highest Court in New Zealand, or even to the intelligence of the Parliament. What has the Court to do with the. Executive? Why should justice be denied or delayed at the bidding of the Executive? Why should the Executive Government take upon itself to instruct the Court in the discharge

of its proper functions?" Surely, the meaning of all this is perfectly plain. As Sir Robert Stout has said, "any person reading their Lordships remarks would assume that this Court had declined jurisdiction, had denied justice, and had lost its dignity and independence through dread of the Executive Government." That is certainly what the average intelligent reader would extract, from the passage we have quoted: and if it docs not mean that, it is difficult to guess what intelligible

opinion it is meant to convey

We hold that thefle words implied a most distinct and insulting retlec-tion upon the honour and integrity of our Court and its Judges; and we consider that Sir Robert Stout, Mr Justice Williams and Mr Justic Edwards were fully justified in their indignant repudiation of these highly offensive charges., 'The Judges of this Court," said Mr Justice Edwards, "arc not unaccustomed to have their decisions upon the statute laws of the colony reversed by their Lordships with something akin to contempt, although their Lordships might well reflect that Judges of this Court are at least as likely to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the meaning of the statute law of this colony as they 'are themselves." The Chief Justice and Mr Justice Williams have supplied ample proof that the Privy Council "knows not

out statutes, or our conveyancing terms, or our history." Ail this has been borne

for years in silence. But "when their Lordships charge the members of this Court with want of dignity, and with denying or delaying justice at the biddin? of the Executive, patience persisted in would cease to be patience, and become pusillanimity." With these sentiments we cordially concur, and while we welcome the disclaimer offered

by the Lords of the Privy Council, it will be generally admitted that we have most largely to thank the courage and

dignity of our Chief Justice and our Supreme Court Judges for the prompt reparation the colony has received for j a gratuitous and unprecedented insult.