ATTACK ON A JUDGE.

Evening Star, Issue 14636, 4 August 1911, Page 4

ATTACK ON A JUDGE.

REPLIES TO A LEGISLATOR. "SHELTER oTrRIVILEGE." A GRAVE INDISCRETION. On taking his seat in the Federal Arbitration Court at Sydney last week Mr Justice Higgins referred to the _ a«aek which w«»s made on him by Mr Waddell, while criticising the Industrial Disputes Act, in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. Mr Justice Higgins, as reported by the Sydnev papers, said:—"" think it my duty on tho first opportunity to refer to ' a grave matter which has occurred since we adjournal, and which relates directly to the Court, and to this case. It eoerns that a Mr Waddell, a member o! the Legislative Assembly of Jfew South Wales, ana a former Minister, used in that Assembly, under the shelter of parliamentary privilege, terms most violent and opprobrious with regard to myself. He said, amongst other things, that 1 am not a just, judge, and that there is no man who ever ■■fisgrared his position move. Now, that language really affected my personal feelings. 1' should be inclined, as no particulars were given or proof offered. to treat the attack with silent contempt, although I franklv admit that, as I did not. know Mr Waddell, the accusation. striking as it did the most sensitive nerves of honor, did give me intense pain. The position is very novel and delicate, and I must speak with salutary judicial restraint.

•• If the fact that he caused pain gives Mr Waddell any satisfaction -he is vrelcome to it, but there is the injury to the public to be considered, for anything said tending to shake the confidence of the community in its Judges has evil consequences of a far-reaching character. In the annals of British justice, accusations BBch as Mr Waddell has made are happily very rare, and it is difficult to overrate the* importance of this fact, as affecting the peace and order of British communities. In connection with my Arbitration Court in particular much of my best work has been done in quiet conference behind the Court, procuring agreements without arbitration, and for tnis'purpose the president must have the confidence and respect of both sides. Mr Waddell. like any other citizen, is entitled to show that any Judge is a disgrace to his position, bat he should take the responsibility for an accusation so grave. He should not call a bad name and run away. He should state, at least, what is the disgraceful act, and cive particulars and proofs. But what do we find here.' Merely the wild and whirling words of reckless and irresponsible ill-temper. "I observe that Mr Hughes, the political head of my department and the Acting Prime Minister, has definitely asked Mr Waddell to point out anything unjust on my part, and that Mr Waddell has declined to do so. Well, he cannot be compelled to answer, but we are entitled to draw our own conclusions. He did speak to the Frees, but (as I presume) because he wji no longer under the shelter of parliamentary privilege, ho carefully avoided restating his abusive language. Ho treated the public to a homily on the right to criticise the conduct of Judges—a homily inspired, no doubt, by the recent ' Mercury ' case. No one ea-y* —I <lo not uippose it was ever urged—that Judges are immune from criticism. ' Criticism.' ?ays Mr Waddell, ' has a healthy effect on Judges.' No doubt of it. I wish wo had more, of it. but it is humorous to find what Mr Waddell calls criticism. He says that I have disgraced my position, and have sullied the ermine which die says) I wear (though I do nn;i. Is this criticism'' Is this what; is healthy for Judges? It might have a healthy effect on inc if 1 knew where I did wrong, but mere vituperation will not turn me from my evil ways. It is the old story - violent language is not strong language; it is a 6%n of weakness. But thus something more than complicates the matter. Looking ove.- Hansard, I find that Mr Waddell was the first, to mention my name.- Xo one had dragged it from its decent obscurity until Mr Waddell spoke. The debate was on an Industrial Bill for New South Wales, and Mr Waddell was •showing how laws of such a character were injurious to pastoralists trtVd farmers. It was in this, comiectios-rdiari Hi? attacked me.

" Now, I understand- that Mr Waddell is largely interested in the stations eon;erned in this very case before me. and is otherwiee connected with the pastoral industry, bnt his name does not appear as that of a respondent. His partner's name appears, and but for an accident I should not have learned that .Mr Waddeli had any interest in this To use his privilege as a member of the New South Wales Assembly for a-n attack on a Federal Judge, in such circumstances, is, to say the a grave indiscretion. However, I am not to be bullied or browbeaten in pursuing my duty. I am subject to the control of the Federal Parliament, and of no other persun or assembly in Australia. It is true that Mr Waddell attacked me in a way which leaves me helpless and defenceless. Not only did he make his speech under the protection, and apparently without the censure, of that Assembly, but he made it when the Court had "risen tor vacation, and [ was far away and had no chance of replying for weeks. But, helpless though I am, this I can do—this I will assure counsel ou both sides that I will do—l will not swerve one inch from the line of my duty as I saw it before Mr Waddell spoke and as I see it still. 1 am aware th-tt my work in the Arbitration Court affects directly far more persons and much greater interests than mv work in the High Court; that it deals wi'ih subjects which are largely involved in political controversy; and that I am peculiarly liable to bitter attacks. But I cannot hope to please everybody. 1 can onlv try to do what ie right, Mr Waddell w'il) be no worse oif in this case than if he had not talked, and he will be no better off. In the crisis of a great struggles in the United Stales Abraham Lincoln spoke to this effect (I give the words to the best of my remembrance):—'With malice to none, with charity towards all. with firmness in the Tight, as God gives us to see the right, let us cany on the work that we have beifun.' That is the spirit that I mean to imitate.

"* I st*, by the way, that in. a Press interview Mr Waddell has seen fit to make another charge against me of a very different nature. Up says that I took a band ia a party fight in connection with the Federal Referendum of April hist. Now. this is the first opportunity that I have had to say, and T now say explicitly. that that charge- is absolutely "and utterly fake. I do not say false to the knowledge of Mr Waddell. for it may be that ha accepted the statement from com? newtpaper. The truth is, 1 gave a lecture at Balmain last year, in which I referred to the evils caused by the rigidity of the United States Constitution. The' lecture was prepared and delivered at a tune when there was no referendum under discussion in the country or in Parliament. Jt was briefly reported, without comment, in one or two Sydney newspapers. That same lecture was delivered in Melbourne last March Nothing was further from my wish or from my mind than to apply the statements or arguments to Australia. 1 have always recognised that Judges must not interfere with politics for very cogent reasons, and I hope that certain State politicians may learn not to interfere, with Federal Judges. I am algn grateful to Mr Waddell for giving me this opportunity of putting the matter right."