CALAMO CURRENTS

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9184, 13 October 1888, Page 1 (Supplement)

CALAMO CURRENTS

» The man who went outside his legitimate business, and plunged into shares and land eyndicates, would not get his discharge without very careful consideration." Snch was the legal dictum laid down in the Supreme Court in Bankruptcy a few days »(To bv Mr. Justice Gillies. From remarks preceding it would appear that such conduct may lead to suspending the granting of the discharge under discussion at the time. As I know nothing whatever of the insolvency in question, my comments have relation only to the general principle, and as 1 have the very highest respect for Mr. Justice Gillies, as witness the tenderconiideration with which I assisted him to recede from the position ho had taken in the Hector-Coromandel epiaodo, I am only influenced by the startling character of the now law laid down with regard to commerciiil criminality, la it, indeed, a penal offence for a man to go "outside his legitimate business and plunge into shares and land syndicates," as pointedly put by His Honor ? Or, in other words, being engaged in one particular occupation as his stated employment, to venture in another, not necessarily criminal in itself, but deriving its criminality from the fact that the man is already engaged in a calling with the duties ami profits of which he ought to be contented ?

Or is it so that there is something inherently immoral or criminal in the business of land speculation, such as does not attach to dealings in corn cr wool or mining or banking shares, which as wo know are all subject to vicissitudes? I feel inclined to ask this because just now it happens that there are a large number of people who have been engaged in the trade in land, and as by the turn in the wheel of fortune this trade has turned up disastrously, there is a general inclination to jump on" them as sinners above all others dwelling in the colony. Now it is not either my province or inclination to defend or exculpate those who have been, as is said, " dabbling in land," any more than those who have been investing in Woollen Company's shares or timber or anything else. In all such cases the investors fter careful thought h.ive deemed that they saw a " good thing," and have invested accordingly. Though in the case of the land speculators there is an excuse possessed by them beyond many others. For as a matter of fact there have been financial institutions with more money sometime than they knew what to do with profitably, and which have almost literally pressed their moneys into men's hands, u;u.*ri:ig to take the merest shadow of security for money.-? advanced for tho iivowed object of buying land to sell "on the rise." As the seducer is always more morally guilty than the seduced, although unfortunately too often it is the seduced that have to bear the shame and pain, and the seducer goes free, so in this case the most culpable parties—if there are any culpable—have been those who have freely and even recklessly provided the wherewithal, and have therefore been accessories before the fact. It is palpable that were it not for the existence of such financial institutions we should never know the land booms, which often prove so disastrous to communities. It is the banks that make the booms ; and just as if a man placed and tapped a barrel of whisky in the middle of an excited crowd, ami toid them to ladle away, a fair judgment would say that he is the one ! that should be censured, and not the poor devils who have gone mad on the free whisky, but. who, none the less, are brought , up before the beak and fined rive shillings and costs for having been drunk and disorderly.

I maintain defiantly that those who have been seduced into land speculation by moneys smilingly and coaxingly forced into their hands, are not half so much to blame— if there is blame at all—as hundreds of others who have deliberately gone into other company shares, which in many cases have brought equally poor returns. But why blanu- at all ? The whole thing is a matter of judgment tempered by chance. Nobody goo- into investment, whether in batik shares or allotments, without believing that lie sees a good thing sticking out; and though it may be said that one should nut do it with other people's money, that '• other people"' knew what it was doing, and risked its money or invested it in what was nothing more nor less than a joint speculation. Just now there seems to be a .-special down on those who have been in land speculation ; bur wherein consists the special sinfulness of it? Of course, they iiave been unfortunate ; and the world always jumps on the unfortunate ; but that is only human nature. But when have we bb'.'uu.to think that speculation in land is wicked? Why, the biggest fortunes in all Australasia, in all the United States, have been made by land speculation. The wealthiest, men in t-.1l the nvw worlds are those wiio have made their riches by landed estate. By timely investments in corner lots, and by the market merely keeping up, they have become financial magnates, eminently respectable, strictly honest and honourable—as ail wealthy men are; great authorities on finance, and deferred to on all matters relating to the prudent management of great financial transactions, though they may not have—many of them—more brains than a sparrow; which would only have boen found uut if they had dropped on the down grade in the market, in which case their weakness would have been disclosed, mid they would have been very sorry fellows, noc at all respectable, and not even altogether honest. i have u friend in Australia, who cleared £145,(X)0 on a speculation. Ii it had missed hu would have been a villain in the estimation of thousands, and probably of the law ; and yet he would have been just the same decent, straightforward fellow that he is now. He would have been taught, perhaps, that "the man who went outside his legitimate business and plunged into shares and land syndicates" should bo precluded from ever doing business again.

Bub 1 am wandering from my subject, which was the consideration of the authority by which this new provision is added to the code of commercial law. It is not on statute ; it is not fixed by precedent; and it evidently belongs to that capricious code of I Judge-made law which is the reproach of | these free colonies. I am not blaming Mr. i .Justice Gillies. He is the victim of a bad ! system—a system wiiich in violation of the j whole spirit of our free and representative | institutions, permits the Judges of the Supreme Court to subject the community to the reign of personal law. That right is assumed by the Supreme Court without any ] ivurrant or authority whatever, and if it wen , authorised by the highest warrant and i authority on earth, save the will of the ' oeople, acting through their representatives i in Parliament assembled, it should noi ' bu tolerated for a day. In this particular ' 3ase it lays down the rule, that a man in business, whether he is a barber or a baker, j who !_'O';s, outside his calling and deals in j land, lias committed such an offence that he should not be permitted to shave or bake any more. His being unfortunate in i the land transaction can form no part of j the oH'ence, though it may be that which i brings him under the review of the law. His offence was going outside his " legiti- i mute business," and engaging in another, j uii'l even if he is successful, and so does i not como within the cognizance of the law, lie ought to be regarded as merely a criminal who has escaped judgment. What constitutes a man's " legitimate business" is not | Jetiii'jd, and, indeed, would be somewhat : difficult to define, for thero is hardly a man of any energy in the colonies who has not been in his time in half-a-dozen callings of »f«; and an attempt like this to impose limitations on the exercise of a man's j choice of the means by which he may supplement his income in any way not in itself criminal, and make a livelihood for himself hi.-i family, i.« an interference with the liberty of the subject against which I, in the name of the great public, rai.se my solemn protest.

But it is against the general application of J udge-made law that I make more particular protest. The case in point is but a single illustration of the right assumed by the Supreme Court to create crimes out of actions that are innocent in themselves, ft "'l which, if tfiey were not innocent, &humd be distinctly laid down in statute as fences, so that all men might) know when

thoy were in danger of passing the limits, instead of being left under the vague and capricious rule of personal law. It is against this reign of personal law that all the great battles of civil liberty have been waged ; and it is strangely paradoxical that, in these colonies, where freedom is enjoyed beyond any other place on earth, we have in our midst an institution that is allowed to usurp rights and immunities in dominating the people by personal will, that are opposed to tho whole genius of representative government. It is true that the Supreme Court owes its position to representative government. From the people it derives all its powers. Its Judges arc appointed by Ministers, who are themselves clothed with their powers by the people ; but immediately on being , so elevated to the bench, a Supreme Court Judge comes at once, or assumes that he comes, under certain undefined and traditional rights, in virtue of which he enacts laws, and surrounds himself with terrors even like unto the Ark of the Covenant from which, when touched by the young men who wished to steady it, the tiro of Heaven flew out and killed them. Of course it requires bub one rude oo.liaion with the popular will to put an end to this anomalous and preposterous condition of things, which—as much out of place as a bank of snow in summer—is tho lust remnant to us of that personal government which constituted the misery of our fathers in the bad old days.

The criminality which henceforth attaches to a man's not sticking to his own "legitimate business" is a quality however that probably will not have much influence on the general conduct of colonists: for it is only in tho event of fortune frowning on a man that the penalty can be imposed, and under these circumstances he will havo stoically prepared himself for being jumped on generally and kicked and culled by everybody according to the custom of the age, and the principles of human nature; and everyone knows full well that if a man's departing from his "legitimate business" and doing a little stroke in corner lots—on a rising market— lands him right, he will be the honored guest of garden parties, balls and routs of every kind, in fact become an honorable and an able leader in finance and commerce as well as in society. It is only if the market does not rise and he is cornered with hi? corner lots that he will be a mean fellow, and not quite honest, and must not be allowed to do anything even in his "legitimate business" for a year or for ever. What a great and glorious thing is success ! it changes the biggest dunderhead into an authority in finance, and makes all the difference between an astute and honorable man of business and a rogue. 'Twas but the other day we could have singled out in Auckland tho men the people would have liked to honour. They were those who boldly ventured, and their enterprise was then recognised as to the gain of Auckland, and wo spoke of them as noble colonists who dared and did to advance tho colony. Now they are the butt for every curmudgeon to flint;- his boot at. And what was it? Just the difference between success and non-success. Hud fortune favoured them, then plaudits. Because she did not, then we jump on them and feel that they are but justly punished for having gone outside their legitimate business unci plunged in shares and syndicates ; and so wo shall smile on them no more, and some of them we shall even shut off for a year or so from their " legitimate business" pour encourager les antra in public spirit. God help us ; it's a queer world, my masters. Polllx.