The Auckland Star; WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1903.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 162, 9 July 1903, Page 4

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

THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1903.

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrong that needs resistance, For the future in the distance, And tltc flood that we can do.

We are inclined to think'that the not particiilarly edifying dispute that is now going on about the colonial order of precedence is' a case of "much ado about nothing." It is fair to admit that Sir Robert Stout is justified in defending the dignity of his high offieVif he thUiks.it has l>fen assailed. On the other hand, the change in the table of precedence, of which the Ohief Justice complains, was made, not by Mr Seddon, but by the Colonial Office. .The importance.attached in England to questions of precedence is a tradition of court formality that has little bearing upon our democratic institutions, and in any ease precedence is j a matter for the Imperial authorities tc settle. They have settled it, and Mi Chamberlain's despatch on the subject shows that they have come to their conclusion only after a fair and exhaustive inquiry into the merits of the ease, and after due consideration of the protest forwarded to them by the New Zealand judges. Under the circumstances, we do not see what is to be gained by fighting the question any further. .As the Premier has pointed out, the difficulty about precedence was raised ..first in. Australia in 1897. The original table of precedence, according to which State functions h-ave hitherto , been arranged liere,.dates back to the, old days ■,of .Crown Government. Under the old 'system, as Mr Seddon has well said, the representatives of the people had no recognised position, because there were practically no people to represent. The contention in Australia for. the last six years -has been that, under our modern constitution, "the advisers of the X.in« J s representative should come after ■ the Ring's representative, and that the Speakers of both .Houses should ta-ke ■precedence of the puisne judges, who were appointed and paid by tile Assemblies over ! 'w,hieh the Speakers preside." Not unnaturally sympathiijing with this view of the case,.our Ministers kid the matter before the Colonial Office, and we now find that the Colonial Office has accepted their arguments as conclusive. The position is somewhat complicated by what appears to have been a curious error on the part of Sir. Robert Stout. While . Acting-Governor during Lord Ranfurly'3.absence in Australia in 1901, the ; Chief Justice found among official documents a draft table of precedence, ■which had neither been approved by Ministers nor referred to the Imperial authorities. -Assuming that this represented the new order, the Chief Justice communicated it to the judges of the Supreme Court, and against this table the judges jointly, protested to the Crqwii. Mr Seddon states thpt the table now adopted differs 'substantially from that on which the judges' petition was based; and it'is likely that our judges, belieying that their position was to be seriously degraded, were stirred to commit themselves to an expression of feeling which they may now find some difficulty, in justifying. However, the judges' petition vras received, and duly considered, , and two months ago the Colonial Secretary forwarded the decision af the

Imperial authorities upon the point. In the new table the - Chief Justice comes fifth on the list; he was originally third, following Ministers and Privy Councillors, and tile puisne judges are eighth (while in the draft table against which the judges petitioned they were fourteenth). This rearrangement the Colonial Secretary justifies in the following words: "The precedence which is assigned to the Chief Justice r.nd the puisne judges in the new table is analogous to that which is held by the judges in this country and in Canada, and that which it is proposed to aesign to the Chief Justice and judges of the Commonwealth of Australia." The despatch concludes with an assurance* that in the Colonial Secretary's opinion neither the Ministers who recommended the change nor His Majesty's Government had any intention, "to belittle the " judicial tribunals of the colony or in any way to lower their dignity."' Since the receipt of this despatch Sir Robert Stout has forwarded to the Colonial Office a protest pointing out that in his opinion, the position of judges and order of precedence in Canada and England are analogous to our own, and stating that, as the independence of the Bench is no longer assured, and the terms of his patent of office have been violated by his degradation in the neiv table, he proposes to resign as soon, as due compensation is arranged. To the Chief Justice's strictures Mr . Seddon has made answer that the ."precedence granted the Chief Justice in his patent solely to the duties of his office, and has no bearing on State or social functions. But whatever.be the legal opinion on this point we think the majority of our readers will dissent from Sir Robert Stout's view of the position of affairs. The analogy of Canada and Australia is sufficiently close to justify the change, and His Majesty's advisers consider that in view of the English practice there can be no detraction from the dignity of the colonial Bench. Sir Robert Stout and the Judges of the Supreme Court have done their duty by protesting against what they regard as an infringement of their official rights. But we agree with the Dunedin "Evening Star" and the "Gtago Daily Times" that the Chief Justice will not take public sympathy with him if he carries his threat of resignation into effect. There is something rather ludicrous in this struggle for formal dignity between the political and judicial heads of a highly democratic. community. But even those who accept the view of one of our Southern contemporaries, that the Avholc business is-'/an exhibition of childish vanity on the part of Ministers,"' will be inclined to endorse its conclusion that the question of precedence is "rather amusing, perhaps even humiliating, but not worth while greatly bothering about."