Evening Post. FRIDAY, AUGUST 25, 1911. THE RAROTONGAN WRANGLE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXII, Issue 48, 25 August 1911, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, AUGUST 25, 1911. THE RAROTONGAN WRANGLE.

The debate on the Chief Justica's report concerning the Administration of the Cook Islands worked out very much as miglit have, been expected. Many bitter things were eaid on both sides, and not a few unjust ones; little new light was ebed upon, the subject-matter of the report ; but conclusive proof was j afforded of the unwisdom of bringing the Bench into political controversy. Every speech that was "delivered may be said to have made its contribution, consciously or unconsciously, to the weight of this proof. Every speaker had either to attack or to praise a. report dealing with some highly controversial charges and prepared by theChief Justice in a private and non* judicial capacity, and most of the speakers were irresistibly driven to attack ,or to praise the. Chief Justice himself. It was of coarse a part of the Opposition's case that a Judge should not have been entrusted with such a missiottj but they unintentionally pointed the moral in a very undesirable way by the personal asperity which they imparted to the attack. On© reason why Judges should be kept out of politics is that they are bound to be unjustly attacked. Some- of the Opposition speakers thus illustrated the soundness of their general contention, by the injustice of the particular attack. On the other hand, the indignant resentment of these personal criticisms from the Government side of the House, while it did something towards redressing the injustice, conld not conceal the. hopeless weakness of the case for which th© Gov* . ernment had to fight. It is tot true, as Mr. Laurenson and others contended, that it was the Opposition that brought the Chief Justice upon the floor of the House. Mr. Allen's , retort foas perfectly sound. It was the action of the Ministry that brought the Chief Justice into the arena of party politics. Th© Chief Justice was brought upofi the floor of the House by the ftiefi who procured his report and laid it upon thd table of the* House, a.fid they cannot shirk the responsibility for the unfortunate results that were bound to follow* Wo have spoken of both sides of the House as having illustrated the soundness of the principle which the Government had violated. A' striking illustration was also afforded from the Chair. Th© Minister for fidncation raised the point when Mr. Allen was speaking that the Standing Orders forbid the criticism of a Judge of the Supreme Court, but the Speaker's reply was th&t in the present instance the Chief Justice was not acting as a Judga of the Supreme Court, Tim ruling, the soundness of which we take to be quite beyond challenge, throws as it were & judicial searchlight upon the blunder of the Government. A. Judge of the Supremo Court as such is beyond the pale of Parliamentary criticism unless the ca-se ie one to justify a. direct charge which is tantamount to impeachment, a.nd would, if proved, be followed by his removal irom offlc*. But m, any, othet capacity.

a Judge enjoys no greater immunity than any other man, and justly bo. Even in his own Court thia distinction holds good. A Jodge who is a litigant hae no Tight to wear his wig and gown or to eit on, the Bench. He mt»t take !hi6 *eat in the body of the Court and submit to CToss-exarfliftAtion and criticism just as freely aa any other litigant. The principle which applies in the Judge's own Court clearly cannot be limited in its application to Parliament or any other tribunal. "The position of the Judges/ Mr. Laurenson argued, "should be sacred." So it should, and just for that reason it should be respected by the Government of the day. Bnt the sacro-sanc-tity that doth hedge a Judge disappears as soon as he ceases to act as a Judge. When Prospero plucked his magic garment from him and laid it down with a "Lie there, my art," he a£ once became subject to all the ordinary limitations of humanity. So must it be with a Judge. There are those who would say that our quotation has a wider application to the present case than we have given it, that with the laying aside of his judicial robes and the undertaking of a non-judicial enquiry, Sir Robert Stout ceased to be judicial. Personally, aa we have previoiisly stated, we have full confidence in hife fairness and capacity. Some tit the ugliest of the chatgeshe seems to us to have completely exploded. There are others on which we are quite pTepared to accept his findings, though the material for an independent judgment is not contained in his report. But it must be conceded that the manner in which the material is set out is in some respects as unjndicial as 'the process by which the enquiry was conducted, and one cannot wonder that it fails to carry conviction to the complainants and their advocVtes. A .very unfortunate business will, however, have served one good | purpose if it acts as a warning to ooth the Government and the Bench of the I grave danger which lies in any confusion or overlapping of their respective functions. Let the cobbler stick to his last, the Government to its administration, and the Judge to his bench.