EDITORIALS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 915, 13 September 1889, Page 27

EDITORIALS.

'33' MR HISLOP’S RESIGNATION.

The extreme step taken by Mr Ilislop in resigning his seat in Parliament in order to

purge himself before the country of the censure exhibited by certain sections in both houses of the Legislature, wiil meet with the approval of every mau who can entertain the idea of honourable consideration. We say both Houses of the Legislature, for although the report of the Public Petitions Committee in tho Lower House dealt only with that phase of the question which involved the Ward-Christie case, there was still an indirect slur cast upon the Government by the report. The Committee could detect nothing in the administration of justice in that case that reflected on the Judge. And enough has been said in the Lower House, beside, to warrant Mr Hislop in regarding himsflf as under quasi censure by a minority at any rate. Hence lie has taken the resolute and straight course of bursting through the flimsy meshes of acrid party feeling that had been cast about him, aud now stands before the country a free man, demanding that tho voice of public opinion should either condemn him outright or restore him to tho position of public esteem he has just officially vacated. It woul 1 be farcical to regal d as an inquiry anything that has been done in this "Ward-Hislop business. The Special Committee of the Legislative Council that dealt with it was certainly open to imputation of partiality in a political sense, and the Lower House did not consider it at all. In replying to the speeches made in the House upon the retirement of his J ate colleague, the Premier was, we think,' right in his argument of tho Ministry not tolerating an inquiry into their action. That would have been indeed a left-handed want of confidence motion. For the individuality of a Minister, in such quealious as have arisen out of the Ward-Christie affair, is merged in the totality of the Administration ■ of which he is a part. That seems to us the position. Mr Hislop acted in what he believed was the best interests of the country and his colleagues, aud although he subsequently admitted to an indiscretion, it was, after all, but

“ a very little one,” and in no way affected tho relative position of his colleaguos and himself. Because of the party rancour excited they might have regretted the indiscretion, but the principle upheld by their colleague could meet with nothing but their approval. This question of principle iB dealt with ably and judicially by the Melbourne Argus of the 27th ulfc. "We give the article in its entirety, as follows :

For some generations the sanctity of the English Bench has hardly over been questioned and the public opinion by which the Judges have been supported might almost he likened to a religious faith. Secure in their offices, freed from any harassing interference on the part of the Crown, or Ministers, or Parliament, placed above bribery, and made independent of any compulsion in the discharge of their duties, they have deservedly enjoyed the confidence of the people. It is seldom that a serious accusation of partiality is heard, or that a scandal fastens itself upon the usual smooth course of justice in the law courfs. Mistakes have undoubtedly been committed. The decisions of every Judge are liable to error, and are properly made the subjects of criticism and review. But these errors, for which the law offers opportunities of correction, are ascribed to the fallibility of the human judgment, and not to any corrupt motive. This high standing, however, in public estimation has been reached through the integrity of the Judges themselves. There is no profession or branch of a profession or office of any sort in the community where so much depends upon the per.-onal uprightness of the men who are engaged in it. Destroy the general belief in the independence of the Judges, in their fairness, their moral courage, and their impartiality, and the administration of justice as it is understood here would collapse in a week. The Judges themselves are keenly aware of this fact. Not only do they strive to be impartial, but they have surrounded their office with traditional rules which are intended to prevent suspicion. Of such rules we may instance the one which clireots that no Judge shall try a case in which he has even the shadow of a personal interest, even though the shadow may be faint. The reason is thoroughly obvious. A Judge can only avoid the accusation of partiality by refusing to deal with cases in which the most indirect personal motive might be assigned to him. But of late, and almost for the first time in colonial history, serious charges have been deliberately levelled against Judges in two different colonies. We do not take account of the grumbling which is the one solaci of the disappointed suitor, or of the criticism that sometimes befalls a judgment, or of such attacks as have been made in New South Wales upon Mr Justice Windeyer. The judicial robes do not prevent men from being guilty at times of over-leniency or over-severity, r-r of giving too many illogical arguments to back up _ a fair sentence, or of travelling beyond their scope to lecture society at large. Still less does their position protect them from being criticised by people who imagine that they have fallen into one or all of these mistakes. But no considerable portion of the community believes that in such instances they are actuated by unfair motives, At present, however,

the allegation of prejudiced [motives lias been made both in New Zealand and Victoria. 'To be strictly accurate, a direct charge of partiality has been launched aeainst a Judge in this colony, and in New Zealand one is openly blamed for having placed himself in a palpably false position. The general nature of the complaint against J udge Quinlan is too well known to need repetition. A number of members of the legal profession have accused him of unfair and prejudiced judgments, and as the charge is direct, the proof or disproof will turn wholly upon the evidence. The New Zealand episode has arisen in a different way. It began in a case at Oamaru, in which a person was prosecuted by a trading, company. After the trial was over, it transpired that the presiding Judge, Judge Ward, was in debt to the companv, and it was questioned whether .his indebtedness was fully covered by.securities. Loud was the clamour, and it speedily reached the ears of one of the Ministers, who represents the district in the House of Representatives. Mr Hislop wrote au official remonstrance on behalf of the Government, and the Judge was ill-advised enough to retort in an angry and recriminatory tone. Then the Minister of Justice entered into the fray, and both Parliament and the public demanded to see all this unique correspondence. It is unnecessary to enter into details. The Ministry relied upon the wholesome rule that the Judge should not have tried a case in which he laid himself open through his own private business relations to have his integrity impugned. Instances were given in which Judge Ward had himself objected, on much less serious grounds, to other Judges sitting upon a particular case. And though there has - been great excitement in New Zealand, and he has fretted and fumed through many letters, he can hardly escape from the fact that his position was wrong, misleading, and liable to expose him to suspicion. His judgment may have been perfectly correct. It may be that, conscious of his own difficult position, he leaned to the side of the prosecuted rather than .to the prosecutor. All students of human nature acknowledge that men will sometimes incline to the side apparently opposed to their interests, in order to free themselves and their conscience from any charge of unfairness. Nevertheless, the inexpediency and fatuity of allowing a Judge h, try a case when he is indebted to one of the parties is evident. And whether the New Zealand Government was right or not in the method of its rebuke, it was certainly right in principle.

It is, perhaps, unfortunate that a Ministry should have had occasion to interfere, with the conduct of a Judge ; for it is essential to the purity of the law Courts that they should be lcept altogether away from political influence. The people who complain of Judge Quinlan propose to follow the right plan of petitioning Parliament to appoint a Commission which will thoroughly investigate the affair. In the interests, both of Judge Quinlan and the public, tho inquiry should be followed to the end. If the charges are untrue, then they cannot be too thoroughly investigated; and if they are correct, Parliament has the power of removing an unjust Judge. Nor should the complainers, having once put their hand to the plough, be permitted to turn back. Having made accusations against a Court of Jnstice, they should be compelled to show what manner of proofs they have to support them. When such charges are publicly made, it would be unfair to the public to hush them up. In the constitution of the law Courts, and in Parliament, there are ways and means of correcting any case of injustice, aud these means should be adopted to 1 show that, though one Judge may fail, the administration of justice is yet sufficient. We are sorry, therefore, to see that after a dispute between the Ministry and a Judge, there is some talk in New Zealand of starting a new Criminal Court of Appeal. Justice ought to be quick, as wall as righteous. The multiplication of Courts of Appeal has weakened the force of the law in America. YVere similar Courts established here every criminal would appeal, and there would be the same delay as in America, the same weakening of public opinion, and perhaps the same sentimentalism. More than one case of error is required to warrant a change in our present system of justice, with its different constitutional checks.

Thus the Argus, from which it appears judicial friction is not confined to New Zealand. Elsewhere the people narrowly scan the attitude of Judges, and are jealous of their reputations. A Judge should be, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion ; and if he is not, if the circumstances of his life shake, however slightly, public esteem in him as a man, and confidence in him as an administrator of the law, he is out of place ou the bench. Judges are not like other men. They occupy the highest position in the community, except the position of a people’s Parliament, and in some respects rise above that, for the poor and afflicted and needy are before them with outstretched hands, relying on their integrity and their ability to administer justice according to laws made and provided, and which can be so readily warped by the clever casuist. Sir George Grey’s speech in the House of Representatives in connection with this unfortunate embroglio was an exhibition of noble outspokenness in the cause of truth. The Premier’s defence of his colleague, too, was a brave bit of oratory, characteristic of the man. We also hold that Mr Hislop has done no harm. Certainly no harm to drive him out of Parliament. However, he is before the country now, and is a very prominent figure at that, and we shall be more than surprised if hi 3 constituents do not accord him a hearty welcome and recommission him with a thumping majority that will put to shame the paltry allegations that have for the time being made a political martyr of him. In a sense, it has been a duel all through between Mr Hislop and. Judge Ward. Why not extend the contest into the political arena pure and simple. Mr Hi.-lop has resigned and is lace to face with his constituents, Let Judge

Ward resign his seat on the judicial bench aud meet his antagonist in tho lists at Oamaru aud break a lance fairly with him before the people. It would bo a gallant spectacle, aud the decision of the people would be final. If the Judge was returned to Parliament he might—well, lead the Opposition.