THE MAGISTERIAL BENCH.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4299, 7 March 1901, Page 2

THE MAGISTERIAL BENCH.

CHARGES BY THE NO-LICENSE PARTY. A number of w/kyan clergymen ami laymen now in Wellington for the V eslevan Conference interviewed the premier yesterday and drew Ins attention to certain conduct alleged a Justice of the Peace m the South and to a remark said to have been uttered in the course of a sly-grog selling case by Mr Stanford, S.M. The Rev F. W. Isitt first explained the wish of the deputation with regard to the Justice of the Peace, Mr V. Dallas. He said that the “Otago Daily Times” and the "Glut!,a Leader in reporting a case that came before die Police Court at Tapaiiui cm lebraary 18th, stated that Sir Dallas had admitted that- he had taken liquor in die house of one O’Dowd, an unlicensed hotelkeeper, and ordered in lus presence by a supposed photographer, w!k> pro\ oc to be a police agent. Dallas had and no idea that the man was a police agent nnd whilst he had not* really nanutten that the drink was paid for, he had stated that he thought he heard the sound of some coin passing. The point was. said Mr Isitt, that Tie had countenanced sly-grog selling by bis action, and the deputation asked, thcrelore, it the name of Air Dallas could not be removed from the roll of Justices oi the

Peace. . Mr Soddon: You have no evidence further Hum what you say appears m the press? Mr Isitt: We ask for au inquiry as to* the truth of that stat ement. Continuing, Mr Isitt pointed out that the reporAn the “Clutha. Leader” was corlobcrated by that sent by the special correspondent of the ‘’Otago Dnilv Times/' . , Mr Soddon: Very well, gentlemen. 1 will make the inquiry that you wish to be made. Mr Isitt went on to introduce the oilier case, which he described as one also calling for inquiry. Last month, he said, Mr Stanford had convicted one McDonald at Stratford of sly-grog selling, and had fined him £lO in four cases, with a proviso of imprisonment. He had then stated—and this was the remark to which the deputation objected —that those who had opposed the introduction of licenses in the Stratford district were as much to blame as th~ “ly-grog sellers, and ought to bear par l of the penalty of fine or imprisonment. If Mr Stanford bad been correctly reported, ho bad insulted not only b s colleagues, but practically 120,000 of the no-license party who sympathised with tho endeavour to keep licenses out ol that district. There .were many ministers of the district, and gentlemen holding high positions on the judicial bench, who sympathised with them in this endeavour, and this Magistrate had told these men that they ought to share the penalty of fine or imprisonment. Such an insult to the no-license party, if the Magistrate had been correctly- reported, was, he thought, one which ought to bo met by a. reprimand. Another member of tiho debilitation spoke to like effect.

The Premier, replying, Kan I that this differed very much from, the other case. In respect of Justices of the Peace, and persons guilty of countenancing in any way a breach of the law, the Government had tho power to put such persons in the position that they would not bo able to err again. (Hear, hear, and a voice—"l hope you’ll do it!”) Only the other day, he, as Defence Minister, did not hesitate, when a captain holding a commission was convicted of sly-grog selling, to immediately call, upon him to resign. (Hear, hear.) That would indicate the views of tho Government in anything of that kind. But now the deputation asked the Government to do what the press of tho colony and the great hulk of the people of the colony would resent. They claimed that the Magistracy must bo kept independent. The trend of public opinion had been that tho Magistrates should be practically independent of the Government, and in the same position as the Judges of the Supreme Court, and this also had been urged by the leading papers of the colony. The deputation considered that if. a Magistrate had expressed strong view’s which were regarded as reflecting upon those who held temperance views, lie must he brought to book by the Government. But, supposing that a Magistrate holding temperance views had expressed very strong opinions on the other side, and bad declared that a lot. of the crime of the colony could be laid at the door of those who were favourable to “the trade,” then they would have all those who differed from the party represented by the deputation asking that the Magistrate should be wigged by the Government; and they would also hear the temperance party declaring that the Magistrate was perfectly justified in what he had said, and that if Magistrates would speak out like that oftener, the “cause” would progress. (Laughter.) In his position ho had to consider both, sides of the question. (Hear, hear.) But the great point ho had to keep in view was, that the Government must not interfere with the Magistracy. If that were allowed, they did - not know where it would stop. Mr Seddon quoted as an instance a recent case, in which, lie said, one of the recent appointees had gone out of his way in expressing his opinion. Someone had come to tho Premier, and had asked him to take a note of it, but his reply had been, “No; we cannot interfere with the Magistrates.” During the time he had been Prime Minister, lie had never yet interfered with the Magistrates in the execution of their duties. (Hear, hear.) If there were in any case sufficient to warrant Government interference, tho offending should he such as_ would warrant the Government in dispensing with the services of the person ini question, and it was only in the most extreme case that there should be such interference. They must be careful in the selection of the Magistrates, so that men should not be put upon the Bench who would wantonly cast reflections upon those who differed from them; but, on. the other hand, it woulcT be a very dangerous thing to interfere with the independence of. tho Magistracy. In the cause of further conversation, Mr Seddon was cordially thanked by members of the deputation for the frank and candid expression of his views, and for his attitude in regard to the independence of the Magistracy. Mr Isitt said lie would receive no stronger support in this attitude than from members of the no-hcense party.