THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 1903. THE PRIVY COUNCIL AND THE COLONY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12241, 9 April 1903, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 1903. THE PRIVY COUNCIL AND THE COLONY.

It was quite obvious to everyone who read the judgment of the Privy Council in the, case of the Forirua trust that some answer or explanation would be found to be imperative. The Lords of the Privy Council, the most exalted Court of Justice in that Empire to which we are all proud to belong, gave a decision which virtually arraigned the honesty and good faith of the Government of the colony, and which stigmatised the Court of Appeal in a manner which made every colonist feel uncomfortable and somewhat ashamed. The Government of the colony was put in the odious position of endeavouring to seize what it had no right to, to claim that certain lands " reverted to the Crown," whereas it had never possessed that land. It said that the SolicitorGeneral had " thought it not inconsistent with the traditions of his high office to attack a charity which it was prima facie his duty to protect," that the attempt of the SolicitorGeneral " to more clearly define the grounds of the defence of the Crown" before the Court of Appeal " was a medley of allegations incapable of proof and derogatory to the Court." But the Privy Council also blamed the Court— the Court accepted it and treated it with extreme deference." This amounts to an accusation that the Court threw all its knowledge of law and the ideas of equity that it ought to have possessed aside in deference to the representations \rnade on behalf of the Crown. It is quite clear that all this must be mischievous to the colony. The injury is serious in New Zealand. The most important thing to any country is that the administration of justice should be untainted, that we should regard our Courts as being incapable of being influenced by any other considerations than those of law and equity, and that in especial there should be no influence exercised over these Courts by the Executive, which is, after all, only a political party. And if the administration of the Court of Appeal can be represented in this fashion as having treated "with extreme deference" allegations made by the Crown which were only a " medley," what is to be inferred of the administration of justice by resident magistrates and District Court judges % And the effect in London must be detrimental to the colony. The character of the colony for uprightness is very vital to it there, and we look upon the recent judgment as being a most serious injury to our credit. There was much, difficulty in making any answer to the stringent comments of the Privy Council. Ministers could scarcely issue a plea in defence, although they will have to make some kind of apologetic explanation to Parliament. The judges of the Court of Appeal who are implicated could not possibly commence an argument with the Privy Council. They must accept the law laid down and administer it in the future as they best can, and they must put up as placidly as may be with the serious ' imputations made on their intellects and their sense of justice. But a champion has come forward in Mr. H. D. Bell, who, however, labours under the disadvantage that he. conducted the case for the Crown, and it may be supposed advised the Crown to take up a position which the Privy Council considers to be unsound in law and immoral in ethics. He says:"Their decision is a declaration that the root of the title is a native cession, and not. a Crown grant." Well, was not the root of the title in this case the cession of a piece of land at Porirua by the native owners to Bishop Selwyn 1 The theory sought to be set up by. the Government according to Mr. Bell was the monstrous one that because, on the cession by the natives, a Crown grant had to be issued for the security of the title and the identification of the land, therefore the Crown was virtually the giver of the land to the Church, and could claim, in certain circumstances, thifc it should revert to the Crown. Mr. Bell says that this reading of the law has " always been understood here," a very vague expression for him to use. We thin he is quite wrong in this assertion: such a monstrous position has never been accepted. The whole business is an exceedingly bad one, and it cannot be amended by anything said by those who have been so seriously accused from the highest quarter from which accusations could issue. There is an ancient maxim of English law "that the honour of the.Crown must be preferred to its profit;" that is, the Crown must sacrifice an apparent advantage when to seize it would tend to bring a breath of suspicion on its honour. That maxim has never been translated to New Zealand. We are now found guilty by the Privy Council of being ready to sacrifice our honour to our profit, and virtually to rob a Church of its property. All parties implicated had better accept the castigation and determine to take a higher moral stand for the future. The Supreme Court, too, must beware of paying special deference to pleas put forward oa behalf of .the Crown* ,