LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1146, 6 June 1911, Page 6

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

PARTY POLITICS AND THE CHIEF

JUSTICE

Sir,—Your accusation that I kept something back in regard to what took place on Iho occasion when tho vote of .£3OOO was passed to pay costs of Native Commission, and your representation that you have filled the void, are my excuse for shortly restating my case. 1. I asserted that no rule existed prohibiting judges from being appointed under exceptional circumstances to do special work and receive therefor special payment. 2. I instanced cases in which this had been done in New Zealand, and if one had time I have no doubt ho could find many other cases. I instanced notable payment made under a Liberal Administration as well as under a so-called Conservative one to a judge of the Supremo Court. 3. I instanced two out of many cases where the same thing had been done in England. In the case of the Geneva Commission, Sir A. Cockburn drew his very high salary as well as his special honorarium of d£l2oo, for about three months, and his travelling expenses were also paid. 4. I said that though tho opportunity was afforded them, no word of condemnation came from the Opposition when a largo vote was being passed. You say I suppressed something, and that in August, 1908, comment was postponed because certain information was wanted. Now, let us see what really happened. The .commission was appointed in January 1907. I have not the Estimates of that year, but everyone knew that Sir Robert was drawing an allowance, and in September or Octobor, 1909, that ho had been paid for tho year ending March 31, .£I2OO odd. Sir. Okey asked on October 22, 1909, if this payment had actually been made and Sir Joseph Ward replied that it had, and made a statement on the subject On the same day Mr. Massey moved for a complete return of the payments to date, and on November 19 this return was put on the table, so that _when the vote of .£250 was passed on December 10, without comment and without any objection from any member, though all members had been possessed of partial knowledge for a very long period and full knowledge for at least three weeks. I have, moreover, searched in Hansard for any condemnation of the appointment or any objection to the allowance during tho session of I'JIO, and find none. Perhaps you can. It may have been overlooked by mo as I have to rely on the index but I looked carefully.

5. It has now been discovered that that dreadful inaccuracy of the Cnief Justice in describing a man in an almost expired Parliament as not a member, was brought about by the Chief Justice's having nail an allowance which lie owed as much to the acquiescence- of tlie Upposmon as lo the Uuvernment's initiative, because it is not likely that he would have taken the position "and honorarium if there had ucen opposition. _ , I thiiiii. i have established my position that whether or not it is expedient to lay down a rule for the future, none such as you and your "well-informed" contemporaries allege has existed or ever did exist. No doubt rules must depend largely on public sentiment', and where there exists a, proneness, fortunately absent in the past, to vulgar innuendo aud evil-thinking, a stricter rule is required than in a.purer and better condition, but as Sir Gcorgo Grey said on a great occasion, the disgrace is not with those attacked, but with the evil-thinker. It is inconvenient to have always to be put on proof that others have not been so bad as the evilthinker would be if ho had the opportunity and rules may have to be made to avoid this inconvenience. All that I was concerned to do was to protest against the suggestions made and adopted by you and the attempt to lower the character of our administrators of justice. I have no wish to interfere so far as members are concerned. Many, including myself, regret that time is wasted on personal matter which could advantageously be expended on criticism of administration and law-making. I passed over your distorted statement of my previous protest against your former attacks upon the. Judges as not pertinent to the present question. Your efforts in that direction have not borne, and are not likely to bear, fruit. I will, with you, look ijith expectant hope upon what may follow my "interference" in this matter. If, as you suggest, something good is to come to me. I hope you and I will both be pleased when it conies, because hitherto my attention to public matters has almost invariably brought me expenso and labour only. But what a dreadful mind yours must bo when you can only see in the actions of another evidence of a sordid motive.-I am, etc., Juno 3. [We quite recognise that anyono who ventures to disagree with Mr. Hislpp is wholly contemptible; but what we should like him now to do is to show how he can justify his inaccurate statements. He says ho carefully searched the index to Hansard; yet the index to Vol. 148 shows beyond all question that the matter was raised by the Opposition in Parliament, as we, stated, and if he turns to page 267 of the samo volume ho will see that protest was made and pressed to a division,' the motion being lost by only seven votes. It is strange that an old Parliamentarian like Mr. Hislop should, after careful search, overlook this fact. Mr. Hislop's little homily on evil-thinking no doubt would be- very admirable in its proper place. But unfortunately we arc not all so virtuous as. Mr. Hislop, and when we see the door opened to a possible means of corrupting the founts of justice, we arc evil-minded enough to wish to shut it. No doubt the burglar who finds the office safe securely locked regards the owner as a suspicious and evil-minded person, but the public recognise that ho has taken a wise precaution that in no way reflects on honest people. Wo suppose it is not much use again telling Mr. Hislop that in this matter the iight has been for a principle, and that so far as the Chief Justice is concerned the payments mado to him and his subsequent actions have merely been quoted to show the danger there is of such payments leading to suspicion being cast on our courts of justice. As he could not find it in Hansard; however, we will quote again for his benefit a portion of what the late Mr. Bauine, a Government supporter, a respected member of the Bar, and a man of wide learning and found judgment, said in 1009 regarding this question (Hansard, Vol. 118, page 271): "Mr. Bauine said he had avoided any reflection on past transactions in every possible way, because he regarded the question at issue as above and beyond any party or personal mattor. ... It was often said to bo more important that the administration of justice should appear pure than that it should be pure. Without going so far as that he would say that it was of the highest importance that no action should be taken either by the Government or by the Bench, either individually or collectively, which could give the outside world the slightest impression that any action of theirs could bo dictated by other than the strictest motives of duty." Mr. Baume may havo been wrong a"nd Mr. Hislop right, but for ourselves we prefer to think that honest citizens would feel safer with tho courts of justice of Mr. Bauine than with those of Mr. Hislop.]

Sir,—Mr. T. W. Hislop has appeared upon the scene. His letter in to-day's issuo upon the above subject contains even more inaccuracies than usual Mr. Hislop quotes Hansard to prove ho is right. Hut he quoted the wrong Hansard. A simple.mistake, of course, for tiny lawyer to make. To use Mr. Itislop's 'own words:—"Reference to Hansard (page 27G, vol.. lit) will show that the volo of X3OOO on Estimates 1008-9 for the cost (including remuneration to the Chief Justice) of Hid Native Commission was, 'after riiipstioiis wero asked and the matter ■explained, passed with no adverse, comment from Mr. Massey and his friends." Now, there's a discovery for Mr. Ilislop Ao make. Note his carefully-worded inferencp Hint a vote of ,£30(111 covered the "'.ost (incluriina rAinunwa.tiou ta tha

Chief Justice)." Sir Robert Stout actually received -.— £ s. d. Honorarium 3,1)71! 12 II Travelling allowance 93:! 8 0 Travelling expenses 9 12 !) Total Xt.Ol!) 13 0 Plus his salary 2,000 0 0 1-0,019 13 0 Plus sum paid to Acting-Judge, Sir. Button, for doing Sir K. Stout's work 1,717 0 0 Grand total .E7.7GG 13 0 The public may as well see the whole bill. So much for Mr. Hislop's ingenuous attempt to minimise the olTcucc by reducing the amount. Now, as to whether the matter was discussed "by Sir. Massey and his friend?." Hansard, volume liß, p. 2G7.—Sir. Fisher moved to reduce the vote Legislative Council ,£1350 by Jtl, "as an indication that what was a constitutional principle should not be violated by the Executive" —i.e., tho payment to the Chief Justice. Sir. Hcrdman followed Sir. Fisher. Sir. Baume followed Sir. Hcrdman. Sir. Siassey followed Sir. Baume. And Sir Joseph Ward followed Sir. Siassey. Then a division took place, and the motion was defeated by 30 to 23. And Sir. Uislop says, "There was no adverse comment from Sir. Siassey and his friends." So much for that point. Then, in search for a precedent, Sir. Ilislop "is unable to verify his recollection that Sir. Justice Richmond was paid for his services on the Hcretaunga Commission." There being no record of a payment to Sir. Justice Richmond—and the records have been searched—Sir. Hislop'would be equally justified in stating that Bishop Latimer was paid for being burnt at the stake. Sir. Hislop does not know what the judges on tho Venezuelan Commission were paid, but ho "feels certain that it was a very largo amount." Very well; I don't know what they were paid, but I "feel certain" it wasn't. One statement would be equal to the other were it not for tho fact that Sir. Hislop is usually wrong. In the particular case under notice the chief point is that payments to judges over and • above their statutory salaries is a pernicious practice, and mny lead to a. lack of confidence in tho Supreme Court Bench. I am sorry that Now Zealand politics cannot boast of more men of the calibre of Sir Eobert Stout, whoso integrity is undoubted. But you cannot easily distinguish tho difference between special payments to judges who are more honourable than other judges. Such a theory would be absurd. The safest plan, therefore, is to make no extra payments at all, and then there will be no need for members of tho Bar rushing into print with inaccurate statements in defence of the Chief or any other judge.—l am, etc., F. SI. B. FISHER. June 3, 1911.