THE DECISION RE MR EDWARDS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1056, 26 May 1892, Page 31

THE DECISION RE MR EDWARDS.

The highest Appeal Court of the Empire has decided that Mr W. B. Edwards is not a Judge. The news will probably be no great surprise to Ministers. They were notified by cable message many weeks ago that their counsel, Sir Horace Davey, and their solicitors, Messrs Mackrell, were hopeful of victory. But to the politicians who £• emphatically endoised the Edwards appointment, the decision of the Privy Council cannot be other than surprising. They were so very confident that we cannot conceive that their confidence was merely assumed. We prefer to think that they were sincere and that the completo vindication of the Government’s acdou by the ablest and most utterly impartial legal tribunal in the world will come to them as a sliock as severe as unexpected. The controversy noW finally settled has continued for more than two years. Mr Edwards was duly appointed Commissioner on the 27 th February, 1890. He was illegally made a Judge of the Supreme Court on the 2nd March following. Two years of heated discussion and embittered dispute have been required to defeat thi3 curious attempt to sap the dignity and independence of the Supreme Court Bench. Many hundred! of pounds have been spent and much ingenuity been employed for and against. But had the controversy been twice as long and wearisome, and the hundreds of pounds been thousands, neither the time nor the money which have brought about so valuable a decision would have been wasted. The position now successfully established for all time was vital. I' comprised the essence of all that makes a Judgeship a post of p >wer, elevation, and independence. The defenders of the extraordinary action of the Atkinson Government contended that the Ministry of the day might go be hind the back of Parliament and appoint not merely one additional Judge, but any number of Judges. They argued that all these Judges must, hold offices for life, and yet might remain for life without salary of any kind. They argued this in the teeth of a statute providing for all Judges a superannuation allowance proportioned to their silanes and length of service. They therefoio argued that the superannuation allowance clause might be an impertinent absurdity, inasmuch as it might provide an allowance proportionate to nil.. They did not explain how a Judge without a salary was to perform his duties, or how the Legislature could have dreamed of giving a Government power to make a Judge who could be left in a position so humiliating and intolerable. They shut their eyes [to the fact that the Civil Lis Act Amendment Act, 1873, with its schedule, had by appropriating £7709 to the salaries of one Chief Justice and four puisne Judges clearly excluded the possibility of other life appointments without an express Act of Parliament. They struggled against the obvious common sense of the argument that the Civil List Act and the Supreme Court Act had to be read together. They tried to get Parliament to believe that it was its duty to submissively let a Ministry force its

hand. All these things they attempted, arid their attempts have finally and disastrously failed. Had the Edwards appointment been validated, it would have been needful to have at once made a law to prevent anything of the kind ever occurring again. Otherwise an unscrupulous Cabinet would have had the power of appointing Judges of the Supreme Court with as lavish a hand as Ministries now make humble and harmless Justices of the Peace. If it had been held lawful to appoint a Native Lands Commissioner “with the status of a Judge of the Supreme Court,” it would have been just as lawful to confer “ the status of a Judge of the Supreme Court” upon any other officer who might have desired it salary not so much 'an as a title and status of dignity ! It is just conceivable that had no objection been raised to Mr Edwards’ dual position, in process of time “Judges” might have become as numerous in New Zealand as they are supposed to be in some of the Southern States of the American Union. The decision of the Privy Council lias checked at the very outset what might have grown into a loose and pernicious custom. Henceforth even the cleverest politicians and smartest lawyers will hesitate about attempting to outflank the Civil List Act. For this we have to thank the Privy Council. We have also to thank the Liberal Party when in Opposition. It was they who by their unflinching exposure of and resistance to this thoroughly improper appointment, not only roused public opinion against it, but prevented the possibly fatal step of voting a sixth Judge’s salary from being taken. Our readers will remember how hard fought was the battle which ended in the word “ Commissioner ” being left standing unaccompanied by the words “ and Judge.” They will remember also—for who can forget it—the fortunate but extraordinary weakness < f the Atkinson Ministry. All may not agree as to the precise amount of sympathy to which Mr Edwards misfortunes now entitle him. Some may think of him as only a confiding and innocent man who has been grossly misled. Others may consider him'an able and experienced lawyer, who, with his eyes open, took his chance of a doubtful position, and lias found fortune against hitn. But ainvst everyone will admit that he . was thoroughly badly used by the politicians who appointed him. It was their moral duty to have stood by him through thick and thin. They had helped him to put his neck into , the noose. As a matter of public honour, they should have baaarded their own necks in the effort lo see him safely through. U*l- - for him, unfortunately for their own memory, bub mosc fortunately for the Bench’s independence, they were not equal to the occasion. The Atkinson Ministers (simply as a matter between themselves and Mr Edwards) ought to have made the appointment a Party question. They ought to have used their majority to force through a proper Bill to enable them to increase the number of Judges by one. Ministers, however, quailed before the outburst of indignation they had excited. Perhaps they excused their conduct to their own consciences by promising to put it all right after the general election. No Ministry, however, has a right to assume that it will survive a general election. At any rate it has no right to put off on that assumption the doing of an urgent duty imposed upon it by considerations of honour. Such postponements are apt to be final. That was the case with the validation of the Edwards appointment. The Atkinson Government, collapsing, left the appointments as an unwelcome legacy to their successors. The la! ter found themselves between two fires. On the one side they were pressed to tear Mr Edwards forthwith from the Bench, if need be 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 li e they took was plain, straight, and consistent. They promised to deal with th s grave constitutional question in a grave, sober, and constitutional manner. They showed neither haste nor violence. They never forgot the respect due go the office which Mr Edwards claimed to fill. They did not forget that their duty was to vindicate a principle and defend a constitu • tional 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 raised. The Ministry put a plain question to the Courts, and the highest tribunal of the Empire has just given them a plain answer. The men who have given that answer are Lord Halsburv, Lord Herschell, Lord MacNaghten, Lord Watson, Lord Hannen, Lord Hobhouse and Sir Richard Crouch. It is the strongest committee the Privy Council has appointed for years —a fact the London press has not been slow to remark.