GOVERNOR WELD AND THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 386, 5 July 1879, Page 22

GOVERNOR WELD AND THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA.

A supplement to the Hobarton Mercury contained the conclusion of what at one time threatened to be an interminable correspondence between his Excellency the Governor of Tasmania and the Judges of the Supreme Court. This correspondence arose out of certain circumstances connected with the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in the case of a convict named Hunt. We have alluded to the controversy on several occasions, and no doubt most of our readers are more or less acquainted with the particulars. The record shows that not only have the distinguished personages mentioned taken part in the discussion, but that the Reiby Ministry, the President of the Legislative Council, the Speaker of the Assembly, and even the Archdeacon of Hobarton, have also contributed to the war of words. The various papers were referred to the Secretary of State in due course, and appear to have received his attentive consideration. It will be seen by reference to Sir Michael Iliclcs-Beach’s final despatch, which we subjoiu, that the right lion, gentleman strongly reprobates the tone adopted by both sides, and displays some not unnatural irritation at the fact that a matter of comparatively trifling importance had been ,allowed to assume such formidable dimensions. “ Dovvning-street, December 2, 1878. “ Sir, —I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your despatches noted in the margin, enclosing copies of a correspondence which lias passed between yourself and the Chief Justice of Tasmania,* on points arising out of the case of the pardon of Louisa Hunt. “2. I much regret that a controversy of ibis nature should have been protracted to the length to which this correspondence has been conducted on both sides. “3. Sir Francis Smith’s communicati-ms to yourself are written in a tone and in language which is highly unbecoming in any circumstance for one occupying so high a position as that of Chief Justice to use, and especially when he is addressing her Majesty’s representative ; and, on the other hand, I cannot but observe that you would have acted with greater discretion if you had not had recourse to arguments and allusions which, without materially enforcing your position, won; calculated to offend and annoy the Chief Justice. “4. The reference, for instance, made in your memorandum for your Ministers of the 3rd of June to the personal causes and political results of Sir Francis Smith’s action, was injudicious and unnecessary. “5. Upon the merits of the controversy itself I must decline to enter further than to observe that I am unable to concur with you in the views stated in your memorandum to Sir F. Smith of the 31st May as to the meaning of the passages in mv predecessor’s despatch, No. 29, of the 29th October, 1877, where he says, “ Strictly, therefore, the Judges were right in their protest,” and “ they were also technically right in refusing to accent the assurance that the view put forward by the Attorney-General was not the view of the Ministers.”

“6. That the words of my predecessor were sufficiently clear in themselves, and appear to require no other interpretation than that which they obviously bear ; and although I have no doubt that you acted with the best intentions in stating what you conceived to be their purport, you would have kept yourself more clear of personal connection with the dispute if you had abstained from any attempt to point those words more directly against the Judge than had been iutended.

“ 7. I trust that this controversy, which has been productive of credit to neither party, will be entirely and finally dropped, and tliat I shall hear no more of it. Nothing can. be more deplorable than that those gentlemen who, as Governor and Chief Justice, occupy the highest positions in a colony, should be constantly appearing before the public as parties to a dispute conducted with heat and acrimony. I cannot but hope that the Chief Justice will not renew the provocation which you have received from him ; but in the event of you receiving hereafter any communications requiring an argumentative reply, you should take especial care that such reply should be characterised by the utmost brevity and calmness, and you should, whenever practicable, cause it to be made by one of your Ministers. —I have, &c., “ M. E. Hicks-Beacii. “Governor Weld, C.M.G.”

* The controversy was principally between the Governor and the Chief Justice, though Mr. Justice Dobson also took part in it, but not in a way that vrns considered objectionable by the Governor.