TWO DESIRABLE BILLS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 162, 11 July 1910, Page 4

TWO DESIRABLE BILLS.

So far as the session has gone we believe that no step yet taken by the Government has secured such general approval as the introduction of the bill amending the Defence Act. The feature of this bill, in which, the general public is particularly interested, is the clause which concedes to any officer dismissed from the service the right of appeal to an independent court. The fact that this Appeal Court is to be presided over by the Cliief Justice or a judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him will ensure that investigation into such cases will be conducted in proper judicial form. Now that the country is embarking upon a system of compulsory military training, it seems eminently desirable that our civiliansoldiers should 'be assured that in the last resort they will not, at least in time of peace, be wholly at the mercy of the exigencies or the eccentricities of military law. The democracy of New Zealand, however strongly impressed it may be with the necessity for universal training, is assuredly not prepared to subordinate its liberties to the unbridled rule of a military autocracy. As to the Knyvett case, which we may fairly claim has really produced this bill, it is brought within the scope of the bill by the simple process of making the measure retrospective for a certain limit of time. So far, we believe, the promoters of the movement to secure a re-hearing for the " affaire Knyvett" have expressed approval of the provisions of the bill, and we congratulate Government upon its decision to recognise thus far the justice of the Knyvett agitation and the importance of the principles it involves. ]No doubt the reluctance displayed by the Premier and his colleagues to reopen this question was largely due to an exaggerated respect for official dignity; but we are convinced that Government will gain infinitely more than it will lose in public esteem by thus acknowledging the right of public opinion to make itself heard on such a subject as this.

Another measure which has just been introduced, and which will, ill our opinion, command general public approval, is the bill to amend the Crown Suits Act. The most important emendation in the existing law is the proposal to allow private individuals under certain conditions to bring suits for damages against the Crown. The general principle of British law on this question is that suits dp, not lie against the Crown, and there is an obvious objection to calling upon that authority which is theoretically the source of law to place itself even momentarily in the position of a subject. It is, however, possible to argue that in New Zealand, where the functions of Government have been so far extended into spheres of action once Teserved solely for private enterprise, the Crown must of necessity come more directly into conflict with private rights than is usually the case under other systems. And it happens that the two cases which, have been chiefly instrumental in inducing Government to bifing down this bill arose directly, out of tiiis, extension of the duties of the State. The case of Motorman Barton, who, being an employee of the Wellington City Council, was struck by a steam lorry from the State Coal depot, and was injured for life, has aroused a great deal of public sympathy throughout tho country. The position taken up by Government in regard to Barton's case has of course been persistently misrepresented for political purposes by the Opposition Press, and it may be as well to point out that Government never did " exempt its action from review of a Court," or attempt to deprive Barton of his legal i rights. Barton took his case into court, and an interlocutory judgment was given to the effect that while the Crown Suits Act of ISBI gave private individuals under certain circumstances the right to damages for injuries inflicted by State employees occupied on "public works," still a steam lorry was not a "public work" within the meaning of the Act, and, therefore, Barton had no remedy. It is grossly inaccurate to say that Government acted tyrannically or arbitrarily in this matter; and by proposing to amend tho law so as to cover such cases as Barton's, it has given conclusive proof of its good faith. The second case which has been instrumental in promoting this desirable change was that of the Co-operative Distributing Company in Wellington, which had a building next to the State coal yard, and found that the coal dust from the Government screens prevented its premises from letting. The Company brought an action against the Crown for damages, Government waived the Crown Suits Act, and the Company got £205 as solatium. But the Company then sought to secure an injunction against the continuance of the nuisance, and here the Crown law officers would not give way. In this case the point at issue is not the precise interpretation of a single term, but the advisability of putting the Crown and the subject upon the same footing in regard to alleged nuisances and claimed damages. As the law stands at present there seems no doubt that the Company had no case. But as in the Barton case, we think that Government has been well advised to take into account the new element introduced into such juristical problems by the wide extension given here to the functions of the State under the system of democratic Liberalism.