DR. MACADAM’S EXPENSES.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 6, Issue 289, 17 July 1865, Page 1

DR. MACADAM’S EXPENSES.

[From the Daily Times, June 23.]

Theee is no one but will give Mr Justice Richmond much credit for his honest outspoken indignation at the conduct of the Government in the Jarvey case. No greater insult could be offered to a court of justice, and nothing could be done more effectually to bring the adminisiration of justice into contempt, than for a Government to allow petty considerations of expense to interfere with the operation of the law. In the instance which was more particularly the subject of the Judge’s animadversions, there were especial features that made the case worse than if the expenses of only an ordinary witness were in question. Dr Macadam lives beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, and his attendance as a witness was only a matter of courtesy on his part. We do not say that this courtesy entitled him to make any claim to repayment that he thought fit; but it did entitle him to instant attention to any claim he made, and to a liberal dealing with such claim. The Govepnment should have taken care that he was not allowed to depart from New Zealand without a sum of money being tendered to him which was considered a fair remuneration for his services. And if he had deemed the tender insufficient, attention should at least have been given to his demands for larger remuneration. But how stands the case? Ti.e Government have made no provision whatever to meet the payment. It was left to Dr Macadam to make a charge. This he did, and no one denies that it was a reasonable one. He asked for five guinnas a day, besides his expenses. A claim of this kind must be characterised as moderate, It is kss than a professional man in Dr Macadam’s position would have the right to expect. There was to one to take it into consideration. The Solicitors, of whose firm the Crown Prosecutor is a member, were public-spirited enough to advance about half of the sum, some ,£l2O, on their own responsibility. They advised the General Government of this, and were snubbed for theirpains. Instead of the money being sent to reim nurse them for their payment on account, together with the balance which was due to the witness, they were told they were not authorised to make such payments. A long correspondence ensued, and it was not until after the remarks of the Judge that the SubTreasurer made it known that the Government had at last authorised the settlement of the matter. Even now we have good grounds for saying that no provision has been made for the payment of the charge for the original analysis made by Dr Macadam in Melbourne. Neither has the doctor been solely singled out for the exhibition of the parsimonious spirit of the Government. We are able to state that payment has been refused of the expenses incurred in keeping the jury during the time the trial lasted. It might have been necessary to comment on these facts, to show how a niggardly spirit of this kind is likely to discourage the fair vindication of the law, when the assistance is required of persons who cannot afford to give their time gratuitously. But remark is almost rendered unnecessary in the face of the very strong language the Judge employed. “It is thoroughly disgraceful. I don’t know upon whom the responsibility lies ; but I do say that it is a disgrace to the Colony. One of the first and highest purposes of Government may be, and for anything I know will be, frustrated by somebody’s gross neglect. It is a perfect disgrace to the Colony. The idea, that witnesses should be compelled to attend in this Court, and that then their expenses should not be promptly paid to them! I am perfectly astonished, and perfectly disgusted. I feel that it falls absolutely within my scope to express myself thus. Governments are of no use if they do not attend to this, their very primary puipose.” It might, perhaps, be added, that the Government have been guilty of discourtesy besides parsimony. ‘Dr Macadam is the r servant of the Victorian government, and through it his presence as a witness ought to have been sought, and payment have been made to him.

This reminds us that the Judge’s remarks are somewhat oddly in contrast with the policy the Victorian Government is endeavouring to enforce. Just at a time when an attempt is being made in Victoria to bring the Judges within the control of the Executive of the day, we find a New Zealand Judge using language towards his Government, which, supposing the same power the Victorian Government contend for existed here, might be held to justify his suspension. We are glad to think that in New Zealand, at least, popular opinion leans towards maintaining the independence of the Judges. It is here that we approach a consideration which has lately been argued at some length in our columns. Iu the petition of the Victorian J ndges to the Houses of Legislature, they rely upon the action of public opinion as one the safe-guards which make it unnecessary that they should be placed under the control of the Government. It is not to be contended for the New Zealand Judges that they are superior to those of neighboring colonies. On the contrary, there are circumstances which make it probable their qualifications are somewhat less. They have been chosen hurriedly iu times of emergency, and with a very restrictted range of choice. The amalgamation of the two branches of the profession has discouraged the exclusive pursuit of that particular from which it is customary to select the occupants of the Bench. The Judges too, with short-sighted jealousy, instead of endeavouring to rear up a recognised bar, do everything they can to lower the pretensions of the gentlemen who appear as counsel before them. They are rarely allowed to conclude three sentences without interruption, and the snubbing of counsel is the favorite amusement of the Bench. The administration of the law is admittedly unequal. The first question which a lawyer considers when a case is submitted to bis judgment is, not its merits, but the Judge who is likely to try it. Still, with these and other drawbacks to which it is not necessary here to allude, which tend to bring into disrespect the administration of justice, there is no desire to see the independence of the Bench forfeited to the political Government. On the contrary, it is felt to be a very satisfactory evidence of its separate entities, when a J udge has the courage to condemn, as Mr Justice Richmond did, the misconduct of the Government. The one, in fact, reacts upon the other. The Government is not likely to be more blind to the lac! es of the Judges, than they are to those of the Government; and to each is afforded constitutional means of assertion.