Evening Post. FRIDAY; SEPTEMBER- 14, 1928. INADEQUACY OF JUDICIAL SALARIES

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 55, 14 September 1928, Page 8

Evening Post. FRIDAY; SEPTEMBER- 14, 1928. INADEQUACY OF JUDICIAL SALARIES

It had long been supposed that the inadequacy of the salaries paid to the Supreme Court Judges was a matter on which the legal profession was unanimous, but the Legal Conference which was held in Christchurch in April revealed an important exception. The matter was brought before the conference by a remit from the Wellington District Law Society, which declared that tho present salaries ' and pensions of tho Supremo Court Judges are quite inadequate and require revision. But before the remit was reached the leader of the profession had expressed his dissent in his opening address. "The Place of the Lawyer in the Community" and "The Relation of the Lawyer to the State" were the subjects on which the Attorney-General (Hon. F. J. Rolleston) had elected to speak, and it could not be said that the question raised by the remit was not relevant to either of them. A position on the Bench is a place in the community which the lawyer alone can fill. It is also a place which marks the climax of his obligations and his services to the State. Taking as his text Mr. Baldwin's remark that "to build up a broken world sacrifice and unselfishness are required," the Attorney-General said that there was a call upon the profession for much unselfish work, and he discussed the alleged inadequacy of judicial salaries mainly, if riot entirely, from this standpoint. We are indebted to the conference number of the "New Zealand Law Journal" for the following report of the Attorney-General's argument on tlie point:— There was one remit which he regretted to see, and that was in respect to the pensions and salaries of Judges. | There was not much chance of increases ! being made —a Judge does not accept a position on the Bench from mercenary motives. He is generally in a position to accept the post at the salary offered. He did not think, speaking with some knowledge of the subject, that anyone had refused a Judgeship on account of j remuneration only. After all, a Judge held the highest position a man could attain to. An Attorney-General is, of course, both a lawyer and a politician. He is both the official head of the legal profession and a member of a Ministry composed almost entirely of laymen, and representing a community in which the lawyers are but a handful. In the first of these capacities the Attorney-General seems to' us to have made an excellent appeal to the profession to recognise that it has obligations to the community which are not discharged by the faithful performance of its duties to individual clients, and which can no more be assessed in fees than the services freely undertaken by every public-spirited citizen. But in his political capacity as the spokesman of the Government the argument of Mr. Rolleston seems to us so weak that we can hardly suppose that he had been convinced by it himself. It is one thing for the head of the legal profession to appeal to its members not to regard their obligations to the community as limited to the earning of their fees. It is another thing for a Minister of the Crown to demand on behalf of the community, and as a matter of right, that the most difficult and most valuable service of all shall be rendered by the best men in the profession at a gross undervalue, because the position with which it is associated is the highest in the land, and because good men have been found to fill it on these terms hitherto. The spirit of "noblesse oblige" has operated, and will continue to operate, to the great benefit of the State in this matter, but for the State to exploit it in the interests of a cheeseparing policy would not be noble, but mean, sordid, and foolish. "A Judge," says the Attorney-Gen-eral, "does not accept a position on the Bench from mercenary motives." The same might be said of a Bishop, yet nobody would argue that on that account a Bishop should be paid less than he was previously earning, or less than he- could afford to take if he had no accumulated savings to fall back upon, or that the sanctity and dignity of the position would compensated for the inadequacy o£ the pay. The parallel of the two offices is, of course, not precise, but it is hear enough to dispose of the reference to mercenary motives. When the Attorney-General says that a Judge is "generally in a position to accept the post at the salary offered," he can only mean that a salary which is less lhan the Judge was earning at the Bar can be eked out with the income or the capital investments. But the argument admits a 150,..

by implication, that Uic salary is less than the work is worth, since, if it were not, there would be no need at all for the laboured dialectics of the Attorney-General. The adequacy of the salary would be a sufficient answer Lo tho critics if it could be conceivably alleged. The case for the Government therefore is that, though the salary is inadequate, a sufficient number of qualified applicants are forthcoming at the price, and a high level of efficiency is maintained. But what reason is there for supposing that, less inadequate salaries would not widen the range of choice? And why should the principle that the State should pay fair value for the services it receives be flagrantly violated in the case of what everybody admits to be the most important service of all? The Attorney-General also tells us that "he does not think that anyone has refused a Judgeship on account of remuneration only.' There is great virtue in that word "only.'' The complexity of human motives rarely allows us to isolate a single one and say with confidence that it was the only cause which determined a particular action. But the AttorneyGeneral's statement does not contradict the common knowledge that the field of choice has sometimes been narrowed by this cause operating in conjunction with others. The publication of Mr. Justice Alpers's memoirs has supplied a good answer lo this part of the Attorney-General's argument. He tells us that the loss of income which acceptance of a Judgeship would involve presented him with a difficult problem. Particulars, of course, are not given, but it may safely be inferred that a larger family or smaller savings might have determined his choice the other way, to the great loss of the country. The country will always be exposed to these risks until it treats its Judges fairly. •