THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND PRECEDENCE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXV, Issue 5008, 4 July 1903, Page 2

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND PRECEDENCE.

Writing on Monday evening, “Common Senso” says;—Scarcely ever has there been a greater mistake than that made by the Chief Justice in bis published “dispatch” to the Governor in relation to the question of precedency, hirst of all, take tho assertion that the Secretary for tho Colonies has proffered “excuses” for tho action taken by tho Governor’s Ministers; tho implication being that instead of “reasons” or cartscs for tho slight changes, there wore de- 1 cided faults or wrongs in tho action taken. It is difficult to perceive whore tho faults or wrongs exist, save in tho mind of Sir Robert Stout Although Mr Chamberlain slated niost'distinctly that tho order of precedency specified in despatch to tho Governor was in accordance with or analogous to that held by tho uuuges in England and in Canada, and now proposed for the Commonwealth of Australia, our Chief■ Justice takes exception to tho arrangement, and considers himself evil entreated,and is prepared to resign his seat on the Bench on receiving proper compensation for his loss of office. Nattirally, one is disposed to ask. Compensation for what ? lor a loss of imaginary dignity in a democratic country f • How is a supposititious loss of dignity to bo measured by pounds, shillings and pence in a matter of this nature, if a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court feels himself aggrieved by a project which shall include the whole question as regards the Dominion of Canada and tho Commonwealth of Australia? But of all Sir Robert’s arguments, that of the comparison of his position with tho position of the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, tho chief of tho House of Lords, is probably tho most futile. Lord Halsbury and all his predecessors since really constitutional government has existed in tho Home Country has been that of a Minister of tho Crown, who goes out of office when tho loader is defeated in tho House of Commons, and by consequence resigns. Tho Chief Justice and the other Judges in this colony remain for life and good behaviour. There is, therefore, no comparison as between the Lord High Chancellor and tho Chief Justice of this colony, whoso position is wholly apart from tho political changes which affect the loftier standing of him who sits on the woolsack. More, much more, might bo said on tho situation and tho status which our Chief Justice has somewhat hastily chosen to assume. But I refrain; Those who choose to study the British table of preoedenqy and make the requisite comparisons must necessarily arrive at. the conclusion that injudicious ha-sto and the notion of personal sentiment bavo Keen the erroneous causes of his Honor's unhappy “dispatch.”