THE TIMARU HERALD ON THE CHARGES IN THE WHITAKERJONES TRIAL.

Oamaru Mail, Volume III, Issue 647, 30 May 1878, Page 2

THE TIMARU HERALD ON THE CHARGES IN THE WHITAKERJONES TRIAL.

The following common-sense remarks appeared in the form of a leader in this morning's Tiniaru Herald. The arguments in the first portion are able, and such that it would be cliiricult to controvert them :

This is a, pretty business certainly about the costs of the defence in the Jones' trial. Mr. Whitaker and his friends little thought how they were playing into the hands of their enemies when they insisted on the prosecution of the editor of the Evening M.-^ 1 ; and the House of little thought what they were doing when they agreed to pay the expenses >f their prisoner in case of his acquittal. There will, no doubt, be a tremendous fuss about the affair when Parliament meets, but we question very much whether anything practical will come out of it. At the time when Mr. Jones arranged his defence, he had no means of judging what the strength of the prosecution might be. or of knowing whether ho would not have to pay all his own expenses, in addition to the penalty of conviction for libel. li would be absurd to blame him for not having spared the public purse by exercising economy in legal assistance. Pie was a perfectly free agent in the matter, and what lie did, he did at his own risk. Had the House of Representatives only resolved that the Government should furnish liim with counsel for his defence, as has been done in other State trials, the case would have been altogether different. The Government would then have chosen a barrister themselves, and would have made their own terms as to expense. As it was, however, they left Mr. Jones to defend himself as best he could, only agreeing to pay his costs if he should be acquitted. We see that the Morning Herald comments somewhat i snecringly on the fact that Mr. Jones retained one lawyer from Hawkes Bay and I one from Oamaru, instead of obtaining legal assistance at Dunedin. We cannot see anything to sneer at in that. In choosing Mr. Pees, he unquestionably chose a counsel who had thoroughly studied the points at issue in the trial ; who had special knowledge and experience of native land questions, whose heart and soul were in the defence—-as against- Mr. Whitaker—and who was better .able probably than any other living man to befog, astonish, and impress a Dunedin jury. The objec f - of the defence was, of course, practically to put Mr. Whitaker on his trial before the public, instead of Mr. Jones before the Court ; and to surround the prosecution with such a mist- of unfamiliar circumstances, aa to render it wholly

unintelligible to the jury. All that Mr. Rees was eminently calculated to do, and actually did, successfully. Mr. Hislop, on the other hand, was properly retained, as being Mr. Jones' own lawyer at Oamaru. Mr. Jones indeed could hardly'have left him out of the case, without a slight, not to mention the inconvenience which he might have felt, in trusting his interests entirely to a stranger. Tiie cost of taking these two rising bar-: ristera from their own locality, and employing them at Dunedin, manifestly could not but be great ; but the matter at stake was great. Mr. Jones' fortune and liberty were in peril, and he was perfectly entitled to risk any sum "t money in their defence. Luckily for him, he was ac<jnitted, and the Government have to pay the piper. Whether the charges made 03' the two lawyers are proper ones or not, we have no means of judging. If they are not, the taxing oilicer we presume, will whittle them down to their due proportions; though how he is to assess the remuneration for preparing a defence in such a trial as Regina v. Jones, we confess wo cannot understand. For all that he can tell, it may have occupied months of Mr. Rees' time, before the trial came on, and the mere "gasingin Court," to use an expressive term for which we are indebted to a famous barrister, may have been the smallest part of the services rendered. At all events, whatever the amount decided upon may be, the public must pay it. Lot us hope that it will be a warning to the House of Representatives to be more careful for the future as to how they turn questions of privilege into oases of libel, and still more, how thoy undertake to bear the cost of the defence.

■ Apart altogether from the position of the House towards Mr. Jones' counsel, is their position towards the member for Auckland City East and the member for YVaitaki. If it is sufficient to disqualify ! a member that he acts as Crown Prosecutor, or barrister under some Act that is not in operation, can members receive thousands of pounds of public money for defending a State prisoner ] Last session Mr. Lusk was severely dealt with because lie or his partner had accepted fifty pounds for professional assistance in connection with some Municipal Bill. He was irdered' to refund tho money, and narrowly escaped being dismissed the House. Yet Mv. Rees and, Mr. Hislop have accepted some fifteen hundred pounds fvr defending a person whose prosecution tlu- iiouse had ordered. What will tho House or the Disqualification Committee say to that l We cannot guess. It will depend very much upon how the Govern-i-i-nc stand by the men, and what the suength of the Opposition is. That it will be made a part}' question is certain ; and it will probably be decided in a manner sufficiently unjust and undignified to form a fitting wind-up of the unjust and undignified Jones case.