MR ALLEN AGAIN

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7444, 19 May 1911, Page 5

MR ALLEN AGAIN

HIS CHARGES AGAINST THE CHIEI I JUSTICE. REITERATED' AND DEPENDED. ritEss association. ‘ CHRISTCHURCH, May IS. Mr James Allen, M.P. for Bruce, re« turned from the North Island to-day and was interviewed in regard to recent utterances of his concerning tho Supremo Court. Sir Allen dealt with tho subject at some length. "It ill becomes Mr Fowlds to talk about 'discrediting one of the most sacred institutions of the country,’” said Mr Allen, "when ho and his colleagues have been tho very people who have brought about this discredit, not by appointing judges to commissions, but by providing for payment to tho Chief Justice of the ■Dominion of a considerable sum of money beyond and in addition to the allowance that is made to him by statutory law for his work ns Chief Justice. ■ Had the Ministry not adopted this, to me, degrading practice, by providing money in. this way for a judge of the Supreme Court, 'then no accusation could have, been levelled against the judge. "One cannot read the history of the Hine affair and the Chief Justice’s action in connection therewith ■ without feeling uneasy. That the Chief Justice should have asked to.be relieved of appointing two judges to. make inquiry into the Hine charges was perfectly legitimate. I have not a word to say against that, but that the Chief Justice, who was simply asked to namo two judges to make the inquiry, should hays commented in his reply on every one of the charges made by Mr Hine—and that without having heard the evidence —is to me unexplainable. If there is onething more than another that we have to protect it is’the bench _ against any influence that can. bias their judgments or make them political partisans. Mr Hine, to my mind, was prejudiced by the remarks of the Chief Justice in the letter sent by him to the Prime Minister. In. that letter, in respect to charge No. I made by Mr Hine, tho Chief Justice made two statements, ona of which, in my opinion, was not in accordance with fact v and the other was proven by indisputable evidence also to be not in accordance with fact. The Chief Justice’s words one must consider to ho the most_ weighty words of any man in the Dominion. That he should say of Mr Hine, as he did when Mr Hine had still to go before tho committee of inquiry, that Mr. Hine had made an incorrect statement, when he said that the person making, a charge was a. member of Parliarn.cn tat the time he made tho charge certainly, to my mind, prejudiced Mr Hine’s case for the time being! Mr Hine’s statement was afterwards proved to be correct, • and the Chief Justice was proved to ho wrong. Further that the judge should ■refer to charge 1 and state that ,it mas ‘merely the babblement, of an. election contest* was prejudicing tho case. These words of tho judge must certainly have made some impression upon the public, and certainly, did make an impression on the chairman of the committee which heard the Hine case. The chairman, of the ooraihitteo actually used the judge’s words when putting a question to a witness, and I cannot think that he would have doue so unless ho had been impressed by them.” ■ Mr Allen went on to say that ho had had no desire to bring all : this matter into the full-light of day. He had made a general statement about the "effect upon our magistrates’ courts and bench or judges by such payments; The “New Zealand Times” roust bo held responsible for bringing tho details before the public, and perhaps it was just as well thit they should be brought out. The-point at 'issue was this: Is it a proper thing for the Ministry, of the day to, put upon the Estimates sums of mony for judges beyond and in- addition to the salaries provided for them by statutory law? Is it possible that tho putting of such sums on tho Estimates, may consciously bt unconsciously influence a judge in his i udgment or' cause ‘ hiiri to have any political bias? In tho case: under review to my mind political biae was shown.