EVADING THE QUESTION.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 11377, 13 September 1902, Page 6

EVADING THE QUESTION.

The North Canterbury Executive of the Farmers' Union has drawn attention to a legitimate grievance oh the part of the country settlers. An objectionable practice has sprung upon the part of some Magistrates of discharging undesirable characters on condition that they shall "leave the town," or "go up country," the two terms in many cases being synonymous. It is manifestly unfair to the country settlers that they shall have the riffraff of the towns foisted upon them in this way. Apart from the hardship to dwellers

in the country, it is questionable whether such a policy is not likely to lead to an increase of crime. So long as they remain in the towns, criminals and loafers are, at any rate, under the surveilianee of the police. In the country there is practically no check upon them .should tbey.give way to their evil propensities. As a matter of fact, cases frequently occur in which a farmer's wife, left alone in the house, is almost terrified of her life by some scoundrel, who comes ostensibly to beg, but very often in reality to levy blackmail. There have been other instances in which serious crimes have been committed. The ordinary risks and inconveniences which country residents, especially the wives and children, have to submit to , are sufficiently trying without being artificially increased by the practice of sending the sweepings of the police courts into the rural jCastri-ts. In these circumstances, we think that the Minister of Justice might, at any rate, have shown a little sympathy with the protest 'sent to the Government,by the Executive of the | North Canterbury Farmers' Union. It will be remembered that they asked the Minister | of Justice to "instruct" the Stipendiary I Magistrates to discontinue the practice referred to. "Instruct" was no doubt not | quite the proper word to use, and the 2_inisi ter of Justice, who evidently wished to give the Farmers' Union a snub and to evade responsibility at the same time, promptly seized upon it. He regretted that he was j '■•unable to give instructions of such a naj " ture to Stipendiary Magistrates, as to do ' "so would amount to an interference with "the administration of justice.'' The bunkum of such a reply is self-evident, especially when it is remembered that the Government have not. scrupled to interfere with particular Magistrates in particular cases when it suited their purpose. We object in the strongest manner to anything like Government interference with the admin- | istration of justice. We cannot see, howI ever, that anything but good would have reI suited from the Government issuing a general memorandum to all Magistrates pointing out that it had been brought under their notice.that the practice referred to was inflicting a wrong on country settlers, and suggesting that the plan of discharging prisoners on condition of their leaving a particular town or district should only be adopted after serious consideration. We hays _tt_|do_bt, however, that if the pro*

test had "come from the" or the Trades and Labour <"ssiu__i Minister's reply troukl have ly worded from the yery 1 dressed totKe FakTmera' Union,''-"'r^fp