The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1896. CORRUPT JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCV, Issue 10920, 31 March 1896, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1896. CORRUPT JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

The Board that investigated what are known as the Lormer charges at Melbourne has found that the accusations of corrupt conduct levelled at certain of the unpaid magistracy in the Victorian capital have been fully proved. In face of the Board’s report, the Government will have no option but to remove the names of Messrs Eappiport, Baxter and Bird from the Commission of the Peace, and it is not improbable. that two of them may be indicted criminally for conspiring to defeat the ends of justice. Such a judicial scandal as this is, fortunately, of rare occurrence in any British community, and we hope and believe that there are very few other Justices of the Peace in these colonies who would act on the sordid and debased motives proved .against these Melbourne Justices. These cases are fitted to recall the outcry that was raised some three years ago by a section of the New Zealand Press against the elevation to the Bench of men who had “no stake in the country,’’ and who actually earned a living, in some cases, by working for wages. The Liberal Government that made these appointments was accused of tampering with justice and bringing discredit on the Bench; but the men who were then entrusted with her Majesty’s commission have justified the choice of Ministers, and have done nothing unworthy of their manhood or the position to which they were raised. One of the recommendations made by the Lormer Board is that Justices of the Peace should be chosen by a special body, or by the Supreme Court Bench, so that the political element may be eliminated. This, by implication, blames the system for having led to the choice of unfit men; but it is difficult to conceive of any method of selection that would entirely shut out that risk. The other recommendation—that, in cities, only Stipendiary Magistrates should adjudicate—is on sounder lines; but we fail to see why a distinction should be drawn between town and country. Scandals are, perhaps, more liable to arise in remote country, districts than in the centre of a busy community, with a vigilant daily Press. It would be well, wherever practicable, to have all cases adjudicated upon by a trained man, paid for his services, leaving the unpaid magistracy only the formal duties of the office. The decision of the Board as to the counter charges lodged, against Mr Lormer, the teetotal Justice who made the accusations of corruption, is rather a curious one. The Board finds that Mr Lormer acted “ improperly ” by sitting on cases when he had a strong bias or prejudice, “ but that he was unconscious of any impropriety in so doing.” The reference is to his occupying the Bench when licensing cases were being tried, his avowed opinion being that all licensed houses were evils and should be abolished. This opinion of the impropriety of his action will, doubtless, be • made the ground of amending legislation to prevent prohibitionists or local optionists from adjudicating in licensing cases. The clause acquitting Mr Lormer of conscious impropriety is a peculiar one The same phrase is used with regard to Justices who migrated from one court to another in order to “ pack ” the Bench on special occasions. The intention is, doubtless, to exonerate these Justices from blame ; but the reasoning underlying the decision is very defective. Mr Eappiport was probably quite unconscious of impropriety when he accepted bribes from accused persons, and Mr Bird doubtless counts among his most virtuous deeds the special leniency that he showed to friends of his own who are members of tbe * frail sisterhood.” The Board, in its strain! ing after a judicial attitude, has committed an absurdity in drawing a dividing line between conscious and unconscious impropriety. If a man’s moral perceptions are so blunted that he fails to realise bis own turpitude, he is all the more unworthy of having any position of responsibility or any share in the work of administering justice.