The Press. TUESDAY, JANUARY 15. 1901. THE VACANCY ON THE SUPREME COURT BENCH.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 10865, 15 January 1901, Page 4

The Press. TUESDAY, JANUARY 15. 1901. THE VACANCY ON THE SUPREME COURT BENCH.

We have on several occasions urged that the judges of the Supreme Court in this colony are scandalously underpaid,, that as time goes on it becomes increasingly difficult to get good men to take the position, and that there is every prospect of the standard of the Supreme Court Bench becoming seriously degraded. It may, perhaps, hi contended by some people who hold the same opinions that the Martin escapade affords r, striking confirmation of the view urged in these columns. To be perfectly candid, however, we do not consider this a good argument. If we gave our puisne judges £3000 a year, as they do in Victoria, we shourd get on the Bench men far abler as lawyers, and of a higher stamp generally than ex-Justice Martin, but we should not thereby guarantee ourselves against the occurence of a chandal similar to that which has just caused such a sensation in this colony. Hi-story shows that there is no sacrifice which a man or a woman will not maks when led. away by the infatuation of the master passion. The amours oi at least ose Lord Chief Justice of England were a public scandal, although, owing, perhaps, mere to his good fortune than to his prudence, it never reached a stage which would have rendered his retirement from the Bench a matter of compulsion. Within the memory cf nun now living, a judge of tlie English Supreme Court died in a house of illfame in tho assize to*-*, where he was ad-mini-3t«iing just'ec en circn't. With thrse exa-nph-- b'fore us, we cannot say that Mr. Justice Martin's down fall was rendered easier by the comparatively low salary which he was being paid. In his case bath the salary and position were more prob blv than, a few y-;rir-! ,v_.r», he ever hnp?d to obtain, and we may be sure that they were not lightly abandoned. What we do again uree most strongly on the attention of the Government, is that they must raise the pay of our Judges if they wish to keep up the intellectual standard, the efficiency, and the

indenendenr-- r" t 1 "? 7ur,rme Point Rc-ni-b. Already it is notorious that the men who stand at the top of the tree as practising lawyers will not accept a position on the Bench wh»n it is offered to thorn. And these are the men from whom the choice ought to be made. We objected strongly to the appointment of Mr. Martin as Judge, at the time when he was appointed temporn.r!lv, on the ground;--—-D that it -•--.->*

utterly wrong in principle to accept a Civil servant for the position, and (2) Hint Mr. Martin, in any case, had not had sufficient experience at the Bar, especially in civil cases, to qualify him for the post. After his appointment he undmibtedlv took considerable pains to fit himself for the duties of the office, and made up to a large extent by the exercise of tact and robust common sense for bis deficient knowledge of the law In thr-sp rrsp-ots -h-_ -vliowed an amount of adaptability for which we had not given him credit, and we had no hesitation in saying so. In the Appeal Court, however, his weikn»ss in th? nrittrr of law could no' have been disguised, and the result- must have been a palpable weakening of that branch of the judicature. Tn filling un the present vacancy, we hope that the Government will not make the mistake of appointing another Civil servant, or any lawyer of limited experience in the practice of his profession. They should offer the post to some leading member of the Bar, in active practice, with a good all-round experience of Supreme Court work. And it would, perhaps, facilitate the task of making a good appointment if they were to announce that they intend to bring down a Bill next session to increase tlie pay of our Judges to something approaching a reasonable amount.