THE SECRET CASE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1088, 29 March 1911, Page 8

THE SECRET CASE.

$ FURTHER PRESS OPINIONS, Tho following atklitianal press opinions on (he H-crot hearing nf a case now before the Supreme Court arc to haml. "DANGEROUS PRECEDENT." The "Grey Jiiver Argus" says: "When it is clear that the names o£ tho parties and the. particulars of tho ease have necessarily bccomo known to a number of persons, the prohibition of the Chief Justice seems to bo like locking I ho stable, door after the stood has been stolen. Tho public either know 100 much or too little of this remarkable case of suppression of facts. When the public know that, either for the convenience nf the parties concerned, or merely in accordance with the whim of tho Chief Justice, all 111? names, details, and nature of the case arc kept a profound secret, then curiosity is whetted to know a little more. With all becoming respect for the high office of Chief Justice, we cannot avoid thinking that an unwise and dangerous precedent has been set up in this mysterious case. What is the nature of I lie mystery? will be uppermost in every mind."

"THE WELLINGTON CASE." "Until we have the full and, official facts of the Wellington easo (says tho "Pahiatua Herald") wo are not prepared to criticise the Chief Justice for exercising his right to forbid publication of tho names of the parties and all details of tho case, but we would suggest that as a general rule this right vested in Supreme Court judges should bo exercised very sparingly, in the case under notice tho judge's decision has merely had (he effect of rousing public curiosity, which has fed 011 rumours which perhaps do not put the caso fairly to all parties. It is a perfectly just deduction that when public men are concerned in proceedings in Chambers, publicity is even more advisable than when the parties arc comparatively unknown in order to prevent the circulation of rumours which may place the public men concerned in an unfavourable and altogether unfair light."

THE SECRET CHAMBER. CASE. Tho "secret Chamber caso" occupying the attention of tho public in Wellington is about tho v.'orst instance of a ridiculous attempt to keep things out of the papers we kpow of (says tho l'eilding ".Star"). It is matter of public note that a prominent supporter of tho Government in tho Legislative Council is tho defendant in the case, and that the point in dispute involves the administration of trust funds to a large amount—just the sort of case which should not be heard under cover. Tho Wellington . correspondent of the ".Marlborough Express" thus refers to it: "It is what is known as a trust case, and the namo of a. prominent member of the Legislative Council is mentioned in connection therewith with painful freedom. Sooner or later, of course, tho whole affair must bo brought out into the light of day." It seems extraordinary that tho Supreme Court Bench should give colour to the idea that, because of the exalted position occupied bv tho principal party to the suit, the machinery of the Court could be used to shelter him from proper publicity, but the whole surroundings certainly give colour to that impression. (Sinco writing the above note, wc have received this morning's Dominion, which says in reference to the case: The question now before the Court is whether a. writ of attachment shall issue against tho defendant, the ex-trustee, for noncompliance with a judgment of the Court that 'he shall pay a sum amounting to several thousand pounds due to the beneficiaries in the estate of which lie was trustee.)

"BEHIND CLOSED DOORS." "In view of all the circumstances (says tho 'Gisborue Times'), we are not at all surprised that tho action of his Honour in making such nil order has given rise to so much criticism. Wc will go further and say that it is difficult to conceivo how tho decision can be fully justified. . . A regrettable featuro of tho whole business is that the press generally has not seen fit to obey the ruling of tho Court, for we find, for instance, that a. well-known and influential southern journal has not only published the names of the parties, but has also indicated the character of the proceedings. The case, it is now understood, may again come before the Court, but whether still in private must remain to bo' seen."

SACRIFICE V. CANT.

[To the Editor.] Sir,—For some time past you have been howling like a Dervish over some alleged legal scnndal now being enacted in your city. 1 read your journal daily, and understand, of course, that you are out for political party scalps. This policy is readily interpreted by the average reader. The point I desire to deal with, however, is this alleged individual and tho national Supremo . Court scnndal which you have succeeded in elevating into something monstrous—something so direful that the very foundations of our Dominion's life are being sapped. The particular aspect of this fearful business that puzzles a number of people (including the present writer) is, why you do not publish tho full particulars of the case, and take the consequences. , I can easily understand a comparatively poor and struggling journal shrinking from the task of exposing such a case, but I cannot understand a journal of The Dominion's wealth and standing doing tho shrinking. If tho case is as serious as you so graphically allege, if it is the gigantic scandal you have outlined, if it docs as you- have repeatedly stated— threaten the very purity and integrity of our Supreme Court's Judges and justicethen surely your journal, as tho oftboasted champion of tho people's rights and privileges and institutions, should not hesitate to expose tho whole sorry busincss. What are you frightened about, anyhow? Talk is cheap.' Platitudes and cant are sickening. Please, get right down to business, and provo! your sincerity as tho boasted champion of justice and public pifl-ity, by making some little sacrifice. If you will not do this, then, in heaven's name, keep quiet about your pain and anxiety concerning the Supreme. Court's alleged "Star Chamber" methods. As a matter of fact, you aro out after party political results. 'Another thing. Why can't you get at least ono correspondent to sign his name to a letter endorsing your procedure. You publish letter after letter, each of which screams or groans about tho "pollution of tho very fountain of justice," and not a single writer has the courage to sign his name. Bah! the whole tiling is nauseating. If tho position is as serious as you and your correspondents assort, then get right into tho heart of it, toko tho aforesaid risk, and prove to the public that you are a real live champion. Prove your sincerity by your sacrifice, or elso crawl into the rat hole of tho scandalmonger. Of course, you won't take any risk. T know you won't. If is lar easier, you think, lo play the party game by sitting on the wall and screaming "Foul," "Coward," "Scandalous"! Get down into the ring, and, make somo sacrifieo for your professions. Get in, and do some fighting, if there is anything worth fighting for. But there is 110 fighting, and there is not anything worth fighting about—l am, etc., W. H. HAWKINS. Pahiatua, March 21, 1011. [Wo should bo sorry to regard the distortions and exaggerations in Mr. Hawkins's elegantly-expressed interpretation of our protest on a question of principle, as the views of ail "average reader" of Tin; Dominion. It. would be waste of time to attempt to enlighten a person who displays such prejudice and such profound ignorance of everyday happenings as to attribute to political motives a protest which is joined in by papers of such antagonistic political views as the "Olago Daily Times" and the "Star," in Duncdin; the "News" and "Star" in Chrisl-churt-h; Tin'. Dominion, Wellington, and "Lyttelton Times," Christchurch; lo say nothing of a host of other journals whose opinions we have quoted in our columns during the past few days. As lo risks, if Mr. Hawkins knew anything almut the matter at all he would know how very littlo the risk which he challenges us l'o take really is; and how great a sacrifice, from a journalistic standpoint, has been made in not taking Ihe more spectacular but quite unnecessary eour;3 which lie Suggests.]