THE SUPREME COURT AND THE PUBLIC.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1025, 14 January 1911, Page 4

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE PUBLIC.

There is an aspect : of' the case of Mit; Me whiskey, whom; Mn. Justice Edwards sent t'o gaol yesterday for disobeying an order of- tho Supreme Court, which is far too'serious to be passed over without notice. We refer, of course, to tho negotiations that wont on between tho Chief Justice and a representative of tho Society for the Protection of Women and Children. These negotiations produced a situation which was unfairly difficult and embarrassing to Judge Edwards, who nevertheless handled the troublesome and painful caso before him in a perfectly admirable It appears that a lady connected with the society referred to placcd herself in communication witn the Chief Justice concerning tho case- and made representations to him which she subsequently replaced' by representations of quite a different character. Mr. Mewhinney appears to have accepted tho intervention of this lady as a fact upon which ho might rely—a very unwise, but, in the circumstances, a not unnatural thing to do, since she had been allowed to appear almost as' a colleague of the Chief Justice. Nobody will douht for a moment that this lady and tho Chief Justice were inspired by the vory best of motives, but equally nobody will doubt tho grave impropriety of tho private intrusion of an outside person or society into the background of a caso which was in' progress, and which was ' being heard; moreover, in camera. There are few things more likely- to excite public resentment and uneasiness than the possibility that a Judge engaged in the adjudication of a dispute before the Court can permit the approach, and admit the private counsel, of some outside party.

Mr. Justice Edwards was as emphatic as any Judge coulcl be. in dealing with this aspect of the case. The society, he said, "had no right to write to Sir Robert Stout or any other Judge." He referred more than once, with obvious disapproval, to tho "unusual" course that seemed to have been taken,, and finally declared with proper bluntncss that "these ladies have no business to interfere in Court proceedings or to attempt to interfere with Judges." But if. a, weight of blame lies upon the society or its representative, what are we to say of tho failure of the Chief Justice to rebuke and discourage this interference with the Courts—his failure to show to these people the impropriety that they may have had some excuse for not seeing for themselves'? It is not difficult to imagine tho treatment that Mr. ' Justice Edwards would extend to any attempt, however well-meaning, _ by an outside party to advise or influence or assist the mind of the Court. The astonishing thing is that the socicty and its representative should have gone about its work so very much as a matter of course. _ Still more astonishing is tho Chief Justice's tolerance of what is a very lax view of the relations of tho Court to the general public. It has not been pleasant to write what wc have written, .but tho comments of Jlh. Justice Edwards wore such as to demand 501&Q public support, and we trust

that his wholesome rebuke will prevent any similar tragedy of good intentions in the future.