THE EDWARDS CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8886, 24 May 1892, Page 5

THE EDWARDS CASE.

DECISION OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

THE APPOINTMENT INVALID. Press Association.—Electric Telegraph,—Copyriiiht.

London, May 22. Till-: decision in the appeal case Buckley v. Edwards was given yesterday by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The case was brought by the .Government .of New Zealand to test' the validity of the appointment of Mr. Edwards as Judge of the Supreme Court, and the decision was in their favour. No costs were allowed on either side. London, May 23. The Times, commenting on the decision of the Privy Council in the Buckley v. Edwards case, says that had the Judges disallowed the appeal a disastrous blow would have been inflicted on the independence of the judiciary in New Zealand. [by TELEGRAPH.OWN CORRESPONDENT.} Wellington*, Monday. The Premier informs me that the main ground upon which the judicial committee of the Privy Council decided the case wa3 that no appointment of judge of tho Supreme Court of New Zealand could be made without permanent provision having been first made for the office, so as to secure the independence of the appointee. The subject occasions a good deal of controversy. The question is raised in various quarters as to whether Mi". Edwards has a legal claim for compensation. That will be a subject for the consideration of the Supreme Court; but the Judges have adjudicated upon the legal issue "Judge, or no Judge,' ' finding that the appointment was a valid appointment. It is now said that Mr. Edwards was never a Judge, that his appointment was invalid alike in form and substance, and that he should have known that was the case. It is stated that he will petition Parliament, and failing there that lie will seek his remedy in the Supreme Court to obtain compensation for loss of his practice as a solicitor from the Government. All the papers devote their leading columns to comments upon the case.

The Times says : — " The Atkinson Government collapsing left the appointment as an unwelcome legacy to their successors. The latter found themselves between two fires. On the one side they were pressed to tear Mr. Edwards forthwith from the Bench, if need even by physical force ; on the other hand they were openly taunted with their inability to redeem in office the assertions they had made in Opposition. The line they took was plain, straight, and consistent. They promised to deal with this grave constitutional question in a grave, sober, and constitutional manner. They showed neither hasto nor violence; they never forgot the respect due to the office which Mr. Edwards claimed to fill; they did not forget that their duty was to vindicate a principle and defend a constitutional position ; therefore they considered that solicitude for the Bench was best shown by respect for the law, and submission to the will of the Law Courts. No tortuous manoeuvres were indulged in, no side issues were raised. The Ministry put a plain question to the Court, and the highest tribunal of the Empire has just given a plain answer. The men who have given that answer are Lord Halsbury, Lord Herschell, Lord Macnaughten, Lord Watson, Lord Hannen, Lord Hobhouso, and Sir Richard Crouch. It is the strongest committee the Privy Council has appointed for years, a fact the London press has nob been slow to remark."

The Post deals with the subject in the following strain : —"The question of the validity of Mr. Edwards' appointment to the judicial bench is now finally determined. Ho is not and never has been a Judge of the Supreme Court. The legal part of the controversy is over, but the political part of it is not. It will be necessary for Parliament not only to validate what Mr. Edwards has done in the character of a Judge, but also to consider the position in which that gentleman has been placed through no fault of his own. lie has, unfortunately for himself and for the colony, been made the plaything of party. During all the controversy, legal or political, not a single word has been uttered on either side derogatory to Mr Edwards himself or impugning his legal qualifications for even the highest judicial office, but he has been cruelly and shamefully treated. He gave up a lucrative position to accept in good faith the appointment offered to him. He had neither right, nor reason to anticipate that the appointment would be seized on as affording an opportunity for party attack, still less had he right or reason to assume that if tho action of Ministers were attacked on party grounds they would meanly shirk off, endeavour to evade their responsibility, and leave him to bear the brunt of their wrong-doing. In September, 1890, we wrote that, 'it would be difficult to conceive a series of greater blunders than Ministers 'have committed in regard to the elevation of Mr. W. B. Edwards to the Supreme Court Bench.'"

The Press writes :—" The case was one of the most important and complicated ever submitted to the Privy Council, and that that high Court had much trouble in arriving at a decision is evidenced by the fact that they allowed so long a time to elapse between the closing of the counsels' addresses and the delivery of their judgment. Of course, there is further cogent evidence as to the difficulty of tho case, in the fact that the Appeal Court in New Zealand maintained the Edwards' appointment was perfectly legal. In the face of all this, it is nothing short of indecent for the Ministerial journal here to bluster and brag about the victory, and to rave about the crime of the Atkinson Government in overriding the law. Overriding the law, forsooth ! Have the Ballance Ministry kept so rigidly within the law that they can fling stones at others ? The law provides that there shall be only six salaried Minister. The Ballance Government have appointed eight. We shall reserve full comment on the Edwards' case until the text of the judgment comes to hand."