THE MAGISTERIAL BENCH

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4300, 8 March 1901, Page 4

THE MAGISTERIAL BENCH

The Premier dealt delicately and well with the Wesleyan clergy who appeared before him to draw his attention to certain misconduct alleged against a- Justice of the Peace and to a remark opposed to have been made by a stipendiary Magistrate. The clergymen comprising the deputation were prohibitionists, and it is.to their credit that, they did'not adopt the same tactics as a former deputation, and seek the removal of a Magistrate who happened to he outspoken in his denunciation of methods employed by the prohibition party. In this case the deputation was quite within its rights in asking that an inquiry should bo made into the conduct of a Justice of the Peace who is said to have partaken of paid-for liquor in an unlicensed house, and it is satisfaeloi.v to know that Mr Seddon has granted the request. It may bo that the gentleman referred to committed a breach of the law unwittingly, or ho may have been tempted by the disguised policeman to drink ini order that the officer might obtain a witness to the transaction and a subsequent conviction. But be that 1 as it may. no Justice of the Peace ought to. violate the law he -is appointed to uphold, although the conduct of the policeman is not one that Wesleyan clergy could ethically defend. Even for the .purpose of, procuring' a conviction against an offender, the measures talceji" by the police are subversive of morality and law. To induce suspected! nien to break the law has been, repeatedly animadverted upon by prominent police officers as being derogatory to the morale of the force, and it is, ■ we believe, contrary to the canons of : ethics invariably approved of nnd'-practis- , edi by The, members of the deputation. While the Justice of the Peace must bo . punished, nor defence can be offered of J the methods by which his alleged guilti- , ness was procured. The other case brought under-the no- ' tice of the Premier was of a different . kind. It arose out of a remark which I one of the deputation said had been : made by Mr Stanford, • S.M., at Strat- . ford. It seems .that the Magistrate i found a sly-grog seller guilty and fined i him £lO in four cases, with a proviso for , imprisonment. In doing so, Mr Stanl ford is said to have remarked that “those who opposed the introduction of licenses ; in the Stratford district were as much i to blame as the sly grog-sellers, and ! ought to bear part of the penalty of the i fine or imprisonment.” If Mr Stanford • actually used these words it must be ■ allowed he was boo logical and outspok- ■ en, But it will not be denied that Mr ; Stanford's remprk discovered a pal- ; pable truth, and Mr Seddon, inverting . the Magistrate’s statement, immediately observed, by way of reply, that from the experience, of other places, **sly grog- . selling immediately ceased as soon as i license was established,” and he cited . instances in support of - his assertion. i j This was the Same thought, doubtless, that Mr Stanford wished to convey, but he expressed the inference which the Premier merely implied by a remark the deputation did not deny. It has long been established that the licensing of a few. is the best means of putting an end to the promiscuous sale of alcoholic beverages. Licensing was established for the purpose of putting an end to private manufacture and private sale. In the march of time, .however, licensing lias nob kept pace with up-to-date ideals or modern needs, and the State .control "or municipalisation of the trade is the reform that offers superior advantages to the present system. The Premier is to he commended on the defence he offered of the independence cf the Magistracy. Tlie ground of complaint was not grievous. The Magistrate - in this instance may have offended tlie ultra-profaibitionist, but it will be generally agreed that he is, being over-zealous, over-sensitive. All Magistrates are upholders of temperance, even although not total abstainers themselves, so that their sympathies are with those who advocate the practice of that virtue a therefore, it seems to ns that Mr Stanford, as a Magistrate, would not willingly offend those who have taken offence at his observation. The circumstances of the case would doubtless modify its asperity, Shorn of these, it has a" sharpness that is hardly pleasant; but, all tilings considered, the Premier’s resolve i-s a safe one. Tlie independence of our Magistrates must be maintained, and they should be guarded against removal or impeachment for the utterance of a phrase offensive to any sensitive party in the community. Deputation and Premier are to be commended for the admirable spirit both displayed throughout the course of the interview.