MR JUSTICE EDWARDS’ APPOINTMENT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 942, 21 March 1890, Page 28

MR JUSTICE EDWARDS’ APPOINTMENT.

Some extraordinary statements have found currency with reference to the appointment of Mr W. B. Edwards as a

Judge of the Supreme Court aud Commissioner under the Native Land Court Act, 1889, and some still more extraordinary arguments have been founded on these statements. It is asserted that Mr Edwards is appointed for five years only and not “ during good behaviour that he will not he empowered to sit in the Court of Appeal; that there is no power to appoint him at all in the absence of any vacancy on the Bench ; that it is unconstitutional for a Judge of the Supreme Court to be made dependent on the Ministry of the day, or on Parliament for his remuneration ; that Mr Edwards will be barred from claiming his proper seniority, so that if one or two vacancies occur on the Bench during his alleged five years’ tenure of office, the new Judges would take precedence of him ; that the Law Officers of the Crown condemn the appointment as ultra vires, and that the Chief Justice has refused to swear in Mr Edwards as Judge. Here is a pretty list of round assertions ! Will it be believed that they are one and all absolutely inaccurate and unfounded, and consequently misleading? Yet such is the case.

In the first . place, to clear the ground, we will “ begin at the end” and state plainly that the appointment of Mr Justice Edwards has been explicitly approved both by the Attorney-General and by the Solici-tor-General —the Chief Law Officers of the Crown and so far from the Chief Justice refusing to swear in Mr Edwards, that gentleman was formally sworn in before Sir James Prendergast last Friday afternoon. In the second place, the appointment is not made “ for five years ” only, but is duriug good behaviour, as in the case of all other Supreme Court Judges. Thirdly, the appointment is not subject to any special limitation. Mr Justice Edwards is, to all intents and purposes.

a “ full blown Judge of the Supreme Court,” quite as much as is Mr Justice Richmond or Mr Justice AVilliams, and could take his seat on the Bench with pleuary powers this very day. Fourthly, he loses no seniority by holding the Commissionership as well, .. but will rank next in precedence to Mr Justice Conolly and before any puisne judges subsequently appointed. He is not —and of course cannot be disqualified from -sitting in the Court of Appeal, but his duties as Commissioner will virtually preclude this, and those duties will take precedence. His appointment as Commissioner stands on precisely the same footing as that of the Parnell-Times Commissioners in England. They are “ lullblown judges,” specially detailed for a particular duty. So is Mr Justice Edwards. The practice is by no means new or even unusual. Mr Edwards was appointed to the Commissionership because he was admittedly the most suitable man for the post. He was also appointed a Supreme Court Judge because experience had proved it advisable that the Commissioner should have the weight and authority which a Supreme Court Judgeship would give him, and because an additional Judge was confessedly needed. His duties as Commissioner will take precedence of all others until his work in that capacity shall have been completed, but in the event of any temporary lull in the progress of the business he will be required to take any circuit sessions, and so to relieve one of the other Judges. Surely all this is plain and simple enough r The tall talk that has been indulged in on the subject by those who have not taken the trouble to ascertain the facts is ridiculous in the highest degree. As for the contention that no power exists, for the appointment of more than the existing number of Judges, it is utter nonsense. The Act expressly provides for “ such other Judges ” as the Governor shall appoint. It is further contended that in any case the Government cannot pay Mr Justice Edwards a salary as Judge. But nobody said or supposed that they could. That depends on the vote of Parliament like all other salaries and payments. A singular misconception seems to prevail on this point. The so-called “permanent ” appropriations (which include the Civil List) are only permanent so long as Parliament does not repeal or alter the Act under which they are made. But Parliament could repeal or alter that Act at any time, and change all the judicial salaries. The argument that it is unconstitutional for a Judge to be pendent on a Government or a Parliament for the voting of his salary is based on another entire misapprehension. As we have already shown, all Judges and officers are thus dependent. We may, however, go further, and point out that it was never intended to render the Judges independent of Parliament. It was of the Crown that the Judges were to be, and are, independent. For their salaries they are, and must ever be, dependent on the vote of the House, and Parliament can always obtain the removal of a Judge by an address to the Crown. The objections to Mr Justice Edwards’ appointment are based on the purest and most transparent fallacies.