QUITE SATISFIED

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 64, 17 March 1927, Page 16

QUITE SATISFIED

APPOINTMENT OF JUSTICES

NEW SYSTEM NOT FAVOURED

A new system for the appointment of Justices of the Peace was urged upon the annual meeting of the "Wellington Honorary Justices' Association last evening, but, after some discussion, the motion, which was intended as a remit to the Dominion Conference of Justices' Associations at Dunedin next week, was defeated decisively.

The motion read as follows:—"That the Government be recommended to require a Magistrate in each magisterial district to form a board consisting of one Magistrate, one police officer, and three Justices of the Peace, who shall recommend to the Government relative to appointments to the Commission of the Peace, thereby relieving the Government of any unfair criticism to the effect that appointments to the peace are made to political supporters of the Government. Further, that the board constituted as above Bhall be a tribunal to advise the Government regarding the cancellation of such appointments."

The mover (Mr. I. Salek) said that the question of appointments^ was already agitating the minds of Australian justices, who considered the present system most unsatisfactory. The speaker was bringing the matter forward for the first time in the interest of the Dominion Justices themselves. The majority of systems in vogue 50 years ago had been altered to suit pres-ent-day conditions, but the method of appointing Justices had remained the same throughout the years. Although a few years ago the position of Justice of the Peace was not regarded as of much importance, endeavours had been made since the inception of the Justices' Association to improve their dignity and status, and now the feeling towards Justices was one of respect. At the present time, the names of nominees were sent to a Magistrate and a police officer, who supplied all the available information to the Minister of Justice before appointments were made. Mr. Salek said that he knew positively that no political colour or religious opinions entered into the question, but nevertheless, the public believed that many appointments were made as the result of political favour. He contended that a Magistrate and a police officer were not qualified to make recommendations. They did not participate in the social life of the community, and their information was gathered purely from outside sources. Men of respectability, good behavour, able to know right from wrong, were the men required for the position of Justices, said Mr. Salek, and these were the men whose appointment could, in the first place, be entrusted to such a. board as he proposed. He quoted the case of the late member for Patea (Mr. J. E. Corrigan), who complained two sessions ago that the Minister had refused to entertain the appointment of a number of his nominees as Justices, and who had suggested that the refusal was due to the fact that he (Mr. Corrigan) was opposed to the Government The Minister has assured Mr. Corrigan that t-ch was not the case, but that the refusal was due to the fact that the men suggested were freezing workers, who wore not suitable for appointment as Justices. Mr. Salek said that such a board as proposed would obviate similar controversies in the future. Dealing with the second portion of the motion; he said that there.should be some tribunal ■which could deal with charges of any kind against a Justice, and recommend the cancellation of his appointment if necessary.

Mr. J. M. Geddis opposed tho motion for two reasons: (1) That it was in the direction of usurping the functions of the Government; and (2) that it seemed to confine the power of advising appointments to a body comprising live persons, three of whom would bo Justices. Ho considered that the public were quite satisfied with tho present system.

Mr. W. Hildrcth agreed with Mr. Geddis that tho present system was favourably regarded by the public. He did not think the association, should take upon itself the right to say by whom tho appointments of Justices should be made.

After discussion along similar lines, the first portion of the motion was put to tho meeting and defeated on the voices. The second portion was not put to the vote