WHO WILL IT BE?

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 236, 5 October 1935, Page 23

WHO WILL IT BE?

NEW CHIEF JUSTICE.

AN INTERESTING VACANCY.

SIR JOHN LATHAM NAMED.

(From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, September 25,

For some time past it has been rumoured that Sir Frank Gavan Duffy, Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, might at any time lie expected to resign. The reason given was his advanced age —Sir Frank is now S 3— and even three years ago, this .was a plausible argument—however much the wish in certain quarters may have been father to the thought. Long before Sir John Latham resigned his position as Federal AttorneyGeneral, most people who considered the question seriously had made up their minds that he would be next Chief Justice. But tile question of Sir Frank Duffy’s resignation and Sir John Latham’s elevation Was raised so often and with such irritating persistence that some people began to believe that there must be some insidious purpose behind it. It was alleged that the motive force at the back of this covert lUgitation was Mr. R. Menzies, then Attorney-General for Victoria. Mr.' Menzies is able and ambitious, his admirers believe that he is destined to be Prime Minister of Australia, and the easiest road for his promotion lay through the Federal Attorney-Generalship. If, then, Mr. Latham (his title came later) could be promoted to the High Court, the way would, be open for Mr. Menzies to exchange a seat in the State Cabinet for a Federal portfolio. Fortunately, perhapSj for all parties, Sir John Latham was compelled by illhealth to withdraw from Federal politics, and Mr. Menzies — whose talents certainly demanded recognition —became the new Federal AttorneyGeneral. But most people assumed that he ■ would do his best to assist in promoting his predecessor to the High Court Bench, and especially after Sir John Latham’s return from his mission to Japan rumours of his impending “translation to a higher sphere” became more frequent than ever. As Federal Attorney-General it is now the duty of Mr. Menzies to take cognisance of such matters, and when a few weeks ago it was reported that Sir Frank Gavan Duffy had actually sent in his resignation to take effect as from October 1 the gossip that has constantly circulated round this question was redoubled in intensity.

“ Undignified Newspaper Squabble.” All this must have been extremely distasteful to the two men most directly concerned. Sir John Latham has always been a great stickler for professional and official etiquette, and he must have felt some resentment at the undignified squabbling in which many newspapers have indulged in this connection —suggesting all kinds of competition for this exalted seat and at least by inference indicating that Sir John was “waiting for dead men’s shoes.” To make matters worse, even after it was known that the Chief Justice had actually resigned, Mr. Menzies for some reason or other — possibly bowing once more to the traditions of .professional etiquette—re-, fused' to .admit that he'field the resignation, and this let. loose a horde of pertinacious reporters upon Sir John Latham and the Chief Justice once more.

As to "the party of the first part,” Sir Frank Gavan Duffy bore himself in this ordeal, with characteristic dignity and good-humour. When his. resignation was at last formally announced he talked cheerfully about his experiences and his future —warned young men to bo tolerant of others, admitted that it was easier for the old than the young to put up with rivalry or opposition, and apologised half ironically for having been so long in getting out of the way. Sir Frank i* certainly a wonderful old man. At 83 he declares that he never felt better in his life, and he is looking forward now to a prolonged study of Dickens and Thackeray, interspersed with detective stories, in which he revels. He may write- a book of experiences gleaned from his long association with’ Bench and Bar, he may travel, he may crown his career by sitting on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, of which he is a member. He believes himself that he has come so far so well by going for a swim every morning and by taking the maxim, “Hate is bad for your health” as his philosophyof life. Ho seems to have earned the respect and admiration of all who have come in contact with him, and everyone will wish him happiness in his retirement. Another Name Mentioned. But to return to Sir John Latham—quite apart from the embarrassment and annoyance that the constant rumours regarding this position must have occasioned him, he is now compelled to feel that his promotion is not so obvious and inevitable as was at first imagined. It has been suggested that political considerations might demand the choice of a' successor from New South Wales, and the name of Mr. Mitchell, K.C., has been freely mentioned. There are several other possible aspirants, and though Sir John Latham’s qualifications for the post are undoubted and his long public services deserve this recognition, it is quite probable that he may have to face some sort of competition, which would certainly be distasteful to a man of his temperament and standing. . fheie is another factor in the situation, which has forced itself into prominence during the past week. Sir John Latham s long connection with the Nationalist party is, from the Labour point of view, a sufficient excuse for regarding him as a biased and prejudiced person; and the fact that he has assisted in framing certain legislation which the workers regard as inimical to their interests lias persuaded some of them that he would be incapable of dispensing even-handed justice where they are concerned. hoi these reasons many members of the Labour party consider that he should be virtually disqualified from holding any judicial position, and they are prepared to sav so in no uncertain terms. Last Wednesday Mr. E. Ward (one of the most vehement and intolerant ot the Langites), member for East Sydney, made a venomous attack on Sir John Latham, advancing a number of reasons for excluding him from the High Court Bench “I have gone into Sir John s history,” said Air. Ward, “and he is not only not a fit and proper person, but he is incapable of filling the position. Mr. Ward began his indictment by going back to the 1925 shipping strike, when Air Latham was, he said, AttorneyGeneral, and he asserted that the special legislation by which Walsh and Johansen were to have been deported was prepared by him. Here Mr. Ward was interrupted by a- Queensland member, who reminded him that Mr. Latham

was not then Attorney-General, and that the legislation in question had been prepared by Sir Lyttelton Groome. Unveiled Charges.

But Mr. Ward is not easily disconcerted. “Oh, well,” he said, “what’s the good of splitting straws. Anyway, he was in favour of it”—and he went on with his charges. He accused Mr. Latham as Attorney-General of having allowed the Abrahams brothers to escape from Australia when they owed the Federal Treasury hundreds of thousands of pounds for evading taxation. “The Abrahams,” he declared, “had been allowed by the Attorney-General to buy immunity from the law.” He further asserted that Mr. Latham was responsible for the withdrawal of a summons against the late John Brown —the great coal baron of the Newcastle district—for breaches of industrial law. “Sir John Latham,” he said, “has always given loyal service to the wealthy and he has always been the enemy of the poor.” In proof of this he instanced Latham’s famous Transport Workers’ Act —popularly known as the Dog Collar Act—under which, said Mr. Ward indignantly, “waterside workers are licensed as though they were dogs.” The merest reference to this Act before a working-class audience is nearly always sufficient to rouse cheers for the speaker and groans for Latham. I have quoted this reference, and the rest of Mr. Ward’s tirade as a specimen of Langite methods, and a sample of the sort of offensive innuendo ami personal abuse to which their, opponents are frequently compelled to submit. I need hardly add that no one outside the ranks of the Langites themselves attaches much importance to all this vituperation. So far as Parliament is concerned’, Mr. Casey made the only possible reply. “It is really unnecessary,” lie said, “for one to make any reference to -Mr. Ward’s attempt to traduce Sir John Latham. For reasons which will be immediately obvious to every member of this House, it is not in Mr. Ward’s power to injure in any way the public reputation of such a man as Sir John Latham, or the personal esteem in which he is held.”

No doubt this is quite true. But Sir John Latham is sensitive and highminded, he is still a good deal of an invalid, and if he actually reaches the High Court Bench, he may yet have occasion to wonder if it was really worth while.