The New-Zealander. AUCKLAND, SATURDAY, OCT. 13, 1815.

New Zealander, Volume 11, Issue 991, 13 October 1855, Page 2

The New-Zealander.

AUCKLAND, SATURDAY, OCT. 13, 1815.

Re Just ami fear not: Let alt the ends thou aim'st nr, ba thy Couatry’s, Thy God’s, amt Truth's.

We know of nothing easier than lo slate an opponent’s argument in one’s own terms and then refine it. The “Cross” of yesterday altogether misrepresents our objections lo Messrs. Beckham, Taylor, May, and Ormsby becoming candidates Cor seals in the Legislature, an I then accuses us of hazarding “loose and random arguments.” We never made objection to Mr. Beckham because bis name is iu the Commission of the Peace, but we do object that any officer exercising judicial functions as the Judge of the Small Debts Court should be a candidate at the very place where he sits daily lo decide cases and settle angry controversies between the electors whose suffrages he is seeking. To Mr. Beckham himself we made no objection—we did not say lie was good, bad, or indifferent. Our objections were not of a personal nature, but lo the principle; and wo must repeal that we do believe it to be a most unhappy mistake on the part of Mr. Beckham that, holding the office he docs, he should place himself iu the position of a political partisan. Wt neither said nor insinuated that Mr. Beckham had perverted or would pervert justice. Such an assertion was not necessary to support our arguments. The gratuitous defence of that gentleman by the “Cross” was therefore wholly un-called for, and is certainly calculated lo render him anything but a service. But we do say that the administration of justice should be above suspicion, and no one will, we think, deny that a judge who entitles himself lo be placed at the bead (as in the “Cross” of yesterday,) of a long list of partisans engaged iu warm political contests, will, whether rightly or wrongly, most assuredly be suspected. As for the story of the Lord Chancellor silting in Parliament, and therefore forming a precedent for Mr. Beckham, it is simply ridiculous ; and we really should have thought that the “Cross” could not bo ignorant of the fact that the Lord Chancellor does not hold his seal hy election. We have asserted, and we repeal it, that Messrs. Taylor, May, and Ormsby do exercise functions of a judicial character. Under the Laud Regulations they have authority to decide “all disputes and differences relating or incident lo the sale, letting, disposal and occupation of the Waste Lands of the Crown.” For this purpose they are to sit iu open Court, and their decisions on all matters “heard and determined by them shall be final and conclusive.” If these are not “judicial functions,” and of the most important nature, we are at a loss lo understand the meaning of the words. The argumentative quibble of the “ Cross” that the Superintendent appoints the Commissioners, and as he has not power of appointing judges, the functions of the Commissioners cannot therefore bo of a judicial character, is 100 apparent a sophism to require a word of refutation. It is indeed beyond question that the cases upon which the decisions of the Commissioners are “final and conclusive” are of far more importance than any which can come before Mr. Beckham, whose jurisdiction limited lo 20 1. ‘ Wc arc not aware of having made any objection to Government Officers merely as such seeking seats .ki the House of Representatives,, {Junigh we believe it will herca ter be lonnii expedient lo exclude many of them. We do not doubt that it will soon become necessary lo carry out the proposition made by the Officer administering the Government in his speech on opening the second session of the General Assembly; and that an Act will be passed “lor preventing holders of office under the General Government from silting as members of the House of Representatives, excepting ahvajs members of the Executive Council.” But ibis objection lo Government Officers is of an entirely different character Iran that which wc have made to Mr. Beckham and the Land Commissioners. The object of the restriction proposed in the opening speech, of course, is to prevent the Legislature from

Tucosning corrupt. To such an extent is this principle carried in England, that the mere holder of n Government contract is precluded from taking a seal in the House ol Commons. If, to avoid corruption, it be found necessary in a Legislature consisting of 658 members to prevent office holders from silling there, how much more so is it called for here, where the number of members is so small ; and if it be feared in England that a Minister may corrupt the House of Commons by the distribution of office and patronage, much more is a similar misfortune to be dreaded in the New Zealand House of Representatives. Precisely the same reasons, of course, exist against officers of the Provincial Government holding seals iu the Provincial Council. That the Attorney-General should “ eleclioneer” under the new order of things is not to be wondered at. He holds an essentially political office. Our contemporary is fond of English precedents, and he will hardly dispute with us that the AttorneyGeneral there, is a politician and a parly man. Everywhere, indeed, politics are a part of his business.