THE New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1896. THE NEW JUDGE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1271, 9 July 1896, Page 22

THE New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1896. THE NEW JUDGE.

The appointment of Mr TV". B. Edwards to the vacant Judgeship, and his acceptance of the appointment, end an episode of the law which was, from first to last, most disagreablo to all concerned. The Government had, in 1891, a most unpleasant duty to perform. They had to take from the Bench of Justice a Judge in whoso appointment there was a flaw. The flaw was not apparent to every one, not apparent even to all learned men, for three Judges of the Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that there was no flaw at all. That made it all the more disagreeable for the Government of Mr Ballance to persevere with the work of backing its opinion to the uttermost point. They backed it, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council endorsed their backing in the very fullest manner. The verdict was, on the other hand, not agreeable to Mr Edwards; and it was not the only thing in the history that was not agreeable to him. The history bristled with things not agreeable to him. First the conduct of the Atkinson Government, which, after getting him to sacrifice a very good business, left him unprotected on the Bench because it declined to risk its neck for him. Nothing much worse than that- has ever occurred in our legal annals. Then all the incidents of the struggle with the new Government, which led to his retirement; they were all unavoidable and very annoying. Lastly, the various attempts to get compensation and their failure added the last drop of bitterness to a cup such as few men have ever had to drink out of. To all concerned, we repeat, the expeiience was most disagreeable. All parties, however, did their duty. The Government's duty was to do ; Mr Edwards' duty was to puffer. The episode is now over, and no better ending could have been found for it.

The appointment was characterised by Captain llussellas " a graceful act." Coming from the Leader of the Opposition the compliment had [special force. It was the best practical recognition that the Government had risen to the occasion in a manner he and his friends had hardly expected. They had regarded the treatment of their nominee as an attack on a political opponent. Of course the only motive of the Government was the vindication of the sacred principle of judicial independence, the principle which we owe to the action of Party Government: a Judgo had been appointed without indefeasible provision for the payment of his salary. Even the judgments in the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the legality of his appointment, declared that there was no certainty whatever about his salary. Virtually, therefore, they declared that a Judgb had been appointed dependent on the administration, in the teeth of the principle of absolute independence which is the principal safeguard of the purity, uprightness and ability of the administration of the law. That was an inconsistency on the part of the Judges, who, going with the Government a certain distance, had stopped short of the logical consequences. The Government followed the road to its proper conclusion. Though the Privy Council judgment aflifmed their correctness i:i the most complete manner, the other side continued to think that the whole matter was political. Had it been so, Mr Edwards would never havo been appointed. The prompt recognition of the appointment by the Leader of the Opposition shows that he and his people have accepted this last evidence of the absolute political impartiality of the Government in this matter from the vei*y first. Nothing could have happened better for the Bench than the appointment. It is not only that the Ministerial dealing with the Bench has been shown to be entirely free from political bias. And all is not said when it is added that the only proper, logical and satisfactory compensation has been made by the Government of New Zealand to a man who was greatly wronged by another Government of New Zealand. On that point we have only to say that one man had even a greater claim than Mr Edwards, and that was Mr District Judge Ward, who had served three long terms on the Supreme Court bench as a locum tcnens. The Government recognising that claim took the first opportunity that presented itself of offering him a Judgeship ; not the first they had got to offer, because prescriptive right claimed that ; but the first at thoiv disposition. He refused for reasons with which the whole country sympathises. Mr Edwards' claim at once became paramount, and he is now a Judge. But as we have said, this is not all. The great fact is that he has been made a Judge in a proper manner. There

is no violation of the principle of judicial independence. Moreover, it has been thought in many quarters that Ministers, in spite of repeated disclaimers to the contrary, held opinions derogatory to his personal fitness for office. The appointment has shown that in legal attainments and personal character the Government have accepted Mr Edwards as in every way qualified for the honourable and onerous position they have called upon him to fill. So it is proved once more that "all's well that ends well."