THE PORIRUA PROTEST.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CIX, Issue 13113, 29 April 1903, Page 3

THE PORIRUA PROTEST.

WELLINGTON OPINIONS. [From Our Correspondent.] WELLINGTON, April 27. I find 'that opinions in the legal professions are divided about the utterances of the Judges oni Saturday, divided as to one part of the line only, viz., the reference to the law points. Several members of the profession think that it would have been better if that had been left to other people, a ’Minister speaking in the House for choice, but about the remarks protesting against the strictures passed on. the conduct of the Judges there is but one opinion. All are agreed ui*ii these strictures on the part of the Privy Council were entirely uncalled for, wide of the mark, and greatly to be deprecated. The idea that the Supreme Court has ever been wanting in the independence which is its main characteristic, is, of course,, scouted on all sides. In this regard' a prominent lawyer made a suggestion in my hearing which is new, and not without attraction. The Privy Council’s judgment was pronounced by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and the necessary order was subsequently made by the Council, the King presiding. As a matter of fact, it is here and filed. The suggestion is that an appeal should! be made to the King not to reverse the judgment, for that would, of course, be impossible, but to free the Supreme Court from the aspersions of the Privy Council’s Judicial Committee oni our Judges. The line is that they are the King’s servants, they hare been unjustly aspersed by other of the King’s servants, and it is in the King’s power to put them right after hearing evidence, should he think fib to do bo. The King, in fact, should be asked, according to this suggestion, to censure his servants of the Privy Council for using expressions to Ms servants of the Supreme Court which were nut called for, and are contrary ta fact.

DUNEDIN NEWSPAPER OPINION., [FbOJI Oua CoraESPODTDEHT.] DUNEDIN, April 27. The "Daily Times” takes the Privr Council to task for its unwarranted attack on the Appeal Court, and says that Mr Justice Williams is justified in Ihia protest. It goes on to say that the Council has not hesitated to impute to the learned Judges of the Court 'of Appeal the worst faults that could possibly bo ascribed to them. They were, the Council de-, clared in effect, prepared to sacrifice the dignity and independence of the Court to the bidding of the Executive Government. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Court of Appeal has replied with warmth and indignation to the Council’s gratuitous attack. The aspersions, however, recoil upon the Privy Council itself. The members of the Court of Appeal axe lawyers of wide experience, lofty principle and unimpeachable integrity. Whatever may bo said about the questions of law raised* the case is now under the notice of the public, who will reject with contempt any suggestion that the Court of A.ppeal did not honestly form its conclusions when it expressed its judgment. What the sequel of the present discussion may be it is not easy to see. If the Privy Council is not acquainted with the laws it is called upon to interpret or administer, in the way the Chief Justice points out* it unconadonriy •becomes a worker of injustice. . It may be that a remedy may ultimately be-sought in the appointment of a truly Imperial Court of Appeal, which shall include re* presentatives of the judiciary of ; the self* governing colonies. With reference to the, Porirua protest the “Star” says:—“We are not in the least surprised at the disinclination of that New Zealand Judges to sit silent under, am. unmerited and perverse castigation, andw« certainly shall not blame them for setting! precedent at defiance and seeking to justify their reputation from their places on the Bench. If this is the first time (as we suppose it is) that a colonial Court has ven* tured to deprecate the criticisms of the Imperial tribunal, it may also be the first time that the judicial committee of the Privy Council has invited a protest by its unreasonable and increasing arrogance. Thera seems to, have been something like a deliberate attempt to belittle the Appeal Court of this colony, and their Lordshipa' almost malignantly ironio language harmonises neither with the traditions of judicial comity nor with the trend of Imperial relationships, and there is absolutely nothing to warrant this stinging pedagogic severity. The Judicial Committee is th« final tribunal as regards material issue, but the last of justice is pronounced by the higher court of public opinion, and before the last has been heard of this Porirua matter their Lordships may regret that) they spoke with such inconclusive acerbity. Without taking upon ourselves to say that their decision was wrong in point of law, wo do say that the terms of the judgment show a curious failure to appreciate both sides of the question, as well as something like an impatient ignorance of history and of Native land laws, and the traditions of this colony. Their Lordships go to the knath of impugning the independence and integrity of the Judges constituting the New Zealand Court of Appeal. There is a peculiar nastiness in the suggestion That the arguments for the Crown in theDonrua case were ‘ not flattering to the dignity or independence of the highest Court in New Zealand,’ and the same may be said of the insinuation that the Judges were determined, at all costs (for the wording nearly amounts to that) to decide in favour of the Government. Their Lordships, with civil leer,’ twit the Court of Appeal on having shown ‘ extreme deference ’ towards argument which was ‘ derogatory to the Court,’ and there is a hint, or more than a hint, that the Judges were influenced by an unholy fear of the Executive and the Parliament of the colony. Surely the Judicial Committee should havo thought twice aud thrice before allowing themselves to indulge in these damaging and odious imputations. They are not ignorant of the fair fame of the New Zealand Bench as regards both ability and honour. Nothing short of the clearest proof of judicial malfeasance could have warranted their Lordships’ strictures. Proof there was none, while there was the strongest presumptive evidence (based on reputation and experience) of the independence and competency of the Bench. The Government and the SolicitorGeneral also have cause of complaint. The Premier has shown, and the parliamentary debates of 1900 prove conclusively, that the sole desire of the Government was to conserve the rights of the Native race and those for whose welfare the Porirua Trust was established. Their course of action may be right or it may be wrong in point of law. and equity, but the honesty of, their intention is clear as noonday to anyone who reads the debates, and all this talk about confiscation and attacking charities indulged in by their sardonic Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is absurdly irrelevant and gratuitously offensive. We shall discuss some of the details of the subject in another article. Today we merely wish to associate ourselves with their Honors, the Judges of the colony, in deprecating and protesting against the criticisms and reflections, which we believe to bo at once unjust and ungenerous.”