THE PRACTICAL STATUTES OF NEW ZEALAND.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIII, Issue 3261, 30 December 1867, Page 4

THE PRACTICAL STATUTES OF NEW ZEALAND.

BY W. M. WILSON, ESQ., BARRISTER. ATLAW.

To thi Editor of th» Daily Southirn Cross. Sib, — Your able and admirable review of this important law work is so replete with instruction to the colonists of Netv Zealand, on matters affecting their position with the native race, with the Executive Governments of the country (General and Provincial), ■with their representatives in Parliament, and with themselves, as settlers, wherein their liberties and properties are jeopardised every other session by tinkering legislation, that yon are deserving of all manner of praise, and every settler who can afford it should act upon your advice by possessing himself of so valuable a woik as the Statutes of New Zealand. A knowledge of their contents may often prove of the greatest advantage to those who possess it, in preventing many from "rushing in where angels ■would fear to tread," ie., into lawr. Great credit i« due to the learned compiler for giving such a useful and elaborate work to the colony just now, and it is creditable in the highest degree to Auckland to be able to produce a young barrister, in the person of Mr. Wilson, able and willing to undertake the compilation of this useful and necessary publication. Some half of the Acts placed annually on the Statnte Book are so inoperative in their action that it were far better v for the material interest»;of jthe colony if they were not there at all j whilst some other half are so surrounded with legal quibbles and ambiguous and unmeaning phrases, spun out to an unwieldy length, that I am almost inclined to think many lawyers themselves do not understand them ; and tHSt being the case, how can the uninitiated be expected to do so ? and if a journalist like you did not take thetroubleof expound, ing certain Acts, we, the latter, should becorapletely iutlw dark regarding them. I am of opinion that mil Acts of Parliament ought to be divested of a great deal of their ambiguous phrases, and couched in such a manner as that an ordinary capacity may understand them. But I suppose tffila would not suit i «th«r the dignity or pockets of their framen, who

*re generally lawyers themselves. Sir, you speak truly when you nay ;— " We desire to impress upon our fellow-colonists the ysat perative necessity of their nukiug themselves familiar with the body of New Zealand Irw, for it in a fact that by emigrating to New Zealand an Englishman forfeits his personal rights as a British subject, and becomes liable to fine and imprison* meut, to loas of personal liberty and forfeiture of estate, at the discretion of an irresponsible official ; —some *I%berry » clothed with judicial power in 'native districts, '—without the right of appeal or the hope of redress, and, for no oritne or offence known to the Jaw of England, or indeed to the law of any civilised State. This may appear strong language, but it is true. A perusal of The Practiced Statutes of New Zealand, which is before us for review, will convince the moat sceptical amongst us of the truth of our statement ; and the way in which some of these un-English enactments have been administered will be found to prove its moderation." . Sir, your exposition of some of these statutes in your review is so forcible, truthful, and just, that anything I could say upon the subject instead of adding to would be only taking from its argumentative and powerful reasoning, Cndeed, I must say that your general knowledge of New Zealand topics is unapproachable, whether these topics be of a financial, political) scientific, agricultural, commercial, ot historical nature. You write truly when you say that the laws made for the " protection" of the native race ought rather to be described as laws "for themoreeffeotual prevention of anyfn'endly intercourse* between the aboriginal natives of New Zealand and European colonists, so long as the natives possess any land, and for the perpetuation of Maori usage < and communism throughout native districts." This is the whole case of New Zealand legislation regarding Europeans and natives stated in a very few words, and anything added therefore would only spoil its effect. I shall quote one other extract from your review, because of its importance and truth, as affecting our position with the native population, which is as follows :— "The amount of mißery, and suffering, and wrong which the Acts and Ordinances regulating our relations to, and dealings with, the native population have entailed upon this country, could not readily be surmised. In them we bave the lock and key to all native difficulties : to the wars aud fightings and confiscations that have earned such notoriety for this colony ; and in their total repeal lies the only hope for tbe pacification and good government of the country. This is a task which, we trust w^Jbft ; undertaken by the Attorney-General, who vfuuf' leisure and ability for the work, and. * who, constitutional lawyer, ought to , take E*}4& .* n purging the Statute Book' Of [oppressive aud impolitic laws." Sir, that we want law reform as well as other reform is clearly shown by your review, especially as regards the laws relating to real property, which, as you truly say, "are far too complex and cumbrous." But it is useless to be talking about tbis or any other reform, unless the people take action upon wgibjects which vitally affect themselves. The quesWon of the division of the two branches of the legal profession is one also deserving of consideration, and until this is effected we cannot hope to see a respectable, upright, aud Jionourable bar in New Zealand ; on the contrary, '^the pettifogging attorney will be certain to keen.down the high-minded, independent, gentlemanly barrister. In very faw places'outside of New Zealand would you see, or would be permitted, the separate positions of attorney aud barrister united in one and the same person. Your remarks *also about the permanency t>i the Attorn|y-Generalship are well worthy of a note, a permanency made doubly aure by the Attorney-General's Act, 1866. How the House of Representatives sanctioned the passing of such an Act as this seems to me most inexplicable. Why, sir, it is only opening the door to further Executive venality by foistiDgan incapable man upon the country, who may happen to be a relative or follower of the Minister of the day, to the exclusion and injury of real merit and talent. In all other places the offices of Attorney -General and Solici-tor-General are filled up by members of the legal profession sitting in Parliament. This is an indispensable requisite of all governments ; and the gentlemen filling these important offices are always taken from the ablest and most talented supporters of the governments who employ them. But we are always doing things by contraries, asJßory O'More would say, in New Zealand. At all -events, air, New Zealand is paying dearly for its whistle and itB hobbies, and will do nothing to retrieve itself until, like tbe last straw that breaks the camel's back, it will have no power to be able to do so. Tinkering legislation, political corruption, and commercial fraud are doing tbis fast enough. This truism cannot be controverted by any legal sophistry. — I am, &c, R. 0. M. Auckland, November 28, 1867.