The Evening Mail. FRIDAY, MAY 31, 1878.

Oamaru Mail, Volume III, Issue 648, 31 May 1878, Page 2

The Evening Mail. FRIDAY, MAY 31, 1878.

The Dnnerlin lawyer who wrote the article in tost Tuesday's Morning Herald, objecting to the payment of the expenses 'ha', have been incurred with regard to I tJ'e Wliitaker-Jones trial, lias written j another in Wednesday's issue of the same ; paper. The style is uiimistakeabiy that of a legal gentleman impertinence more than legal ability has gained for him the reputation of being one of the leading members of his profession in the Colony. With a volubility that is surprising, seeing that he has deprecated the same as being characteristic of Mr. Eees, lie essays to pnt everybody right as to how Messrs. Rees and Hislop and the bill of costs arising out of the Whitaker-Jones ease should be treated. Fearful lest our Parliament should become corrupt, and public money wrongfully expended, he displays distressing anxiety that Messrs. lice* "and Hislop should be expelled the j House for having defended Mr. Jon.es. j land that, instead <>f the L 2117 14s j | claimed as expenses, two or three lain- j j dred pounds only should be _ paid. _ In j J support of his views for the disqualifies- i jtion as members of Parliament of the! • counsel for the defence in the case, he: i cites the cases of Messrs. Travers and! j Lusk : but his reasons for objecting to j | the payment of the expenses of the trial j ! are not quite so clear. His excusej | U that they are too high: bntj ! we may fairly assume, knowing what we | do of "the circumstances surrounding his j objection, that they are only too high j because Messrs. Kees and Hislop are to j be the recipients of a portion of them. I and that there would have been no such show of excessive virtue had a Dunedin lawyer, or, better still, the writer himself, j been placed in Messrs. liens and Hislop's ! position. There is no analogy between j

the positions that Messrs. Travers and Lusk occunied last session, and the position of Messrs. Rees and Hislop, and the writer's attempt to draw a parallel must be due either to his lack of perspicacity or to an over estimate of the gullibility of the readers of the Herald. Wu glean from Hansard, which is a record of Parliamentary events quite as awkward for the | writer in tl.e Herald as it has always been ! for certain members of the house I troubled with bad memories, that this is how Mr. Travers got into disgrace : In Mr. Travers' case there could be little doubt that Parliamentary rules had inadvertently been violated by him in presenting the petition of Messrs. Holmes and Co., the contractors for the Moorhouse tunnel. Mr. Travers had acted as their solicitor in suing the late Provincial ! Government of Canterbury, had received i fees on that account, and had advised. He, therefore, was precluded from taking any active Dart in promoting their claims, as he must'have either, by voting against the claims, proved untrue to his former clients, or, by advocating them, lead to the supposition that his judgment was swayed by his previous position. Now let us glance at Mr. Lusk's case, the facts of which we obtain from the same source. It arose in this wise : —That gentleman, as a solicitor, was employed to prepare a bill for the Auckland City Council, and, as a member of Parliament, was entrusted with the task of watching its interests in its progress through its various Parliamentary stages. For performing this service, the firm of Messrs. Lusk and Bealc received the sum of LSO from the Auckland City Council. Although there can be little doubt that Mr. Lusk° had inadvertently violated one I of the privileges of members of Parliament, the House took a very just view of that gentleman's case, and fined him a sum similar to that which he had received as a fee. We will now look at the positions in which Messrs.Uees and Hislop are placed. Those gentlemen from their sc ; ats in the House strenuously opposed the prosecution of Mr. Jones for libel. There is no gainsaying this statement, for : ue glean it" from Hansard, and to that I pub.uation, which does not lie as do some lawyers, we would refer the writer in the Hern Id. It is not our business to act as thick and thin champion of Messrs. ! Rses and Hislop ; but we are in- • i disposed to quietly allow the public •: mind to bo poisoned by the vene- ! ' men-,, --elf-inte-rested, and misleading ' assertions of a disappointed and covetous Dunedin lawyer. He writes of the necessity of maintaining the purity or our Par- ■ liaiu .it. Purity of Parliament, forsooth ; ]\\ie might better spend his Lime and the ' | ir .ie talent ho possesses in endeavoring | r.- pur>_'e a terrain seeiiou of the legal ! profession of the foulness that would ' : i-anse a shudder wore it laid "pen to the "nzo. P».v imiendoes lie would h:ivc us beiie'.v that the. honorable goiiifleiil-. 11 who acted as CoilliS'i for the 'i def-nce were iv- very pcr.'ouiiieation of . corruption. We kmc-v mi .-re of those •vntleineti ih:m iio does who is as igno- : rant of the charier rs of those whom lie Ims traduced as he is of the subject up..11 i which lie. has had tin; temerity to attempt ! m eiilL'hteii the public. The diseased ; ini'id of the writer in the Herald would . ■.;;<;< us Wii.-ve. by reversing the iii's:;ii>ns of parties, tiiat everything L : !>ut hi:ese;f i- stamped by villany. ..Even Uie r.-oui-il.ie gentlemen who "; eon;nosed ill-- special inrv in the Winta-

:om posed ill- 1 special jury in the Winta-c.'r-Jiui-s l;h. I cas- have been subjected ii viii- i;iijic!"'i :ii the hands of this pro- • •.ssional •.::,''.i , .-.!iii:itoi-. His evil imaginai'.n has conjured up probabilities, and dven us an idea of how Ir: would have icted had he Wen chosen to represent a suction of the people in Parliament. Ho ■xpends half a column of words in endear uring to show how wicked a member of he I-IcHise, who was also a lawyer, might >e if he chose, and in doing this he rlis>lays singular aptitude, and the picture, ilthough pregnant with, villany. is painted ,vith swell vividness that, were the writer a nembcr of Parliament, as well as a lawyer, ive would at once say, "Thou art the man." The writer infers that Messrs. Ree.s and Hislop transgressed in having tuything at all to do with a prosecution that had been ordered by the House. So far as their position as members of Parliaia concerned they are secure, because not only have they not committed a breach of privilege, but the House knew from the commencement of the proceedings that they were acting for the accused, it being in session at the time preliminary steps were taken in the Resident Magistrate's Court at Wellington. But there, is a moral side to the question, over which we have no doubt the mind of the legal prude of the Herald is sorely exercised. In the light of morality die! they err in adopting the role of Mr. Jones' defenders 1 No. The position was forced upon them. Mr. Stout was asked to act, but he declined, because he was of the opinion that Mr. Itees' knowledge of native land transactions, he having for years practised in the thick of native land trafficking, would prove useful to the accused ; and Mr. Stout's opinion would have received more striking confirmation had it not been for the successful efforts of the other side to quench investigation. Ac the time chat the case was altered to Mr. Rces, that gentleman was about to remove from Auckland to ISapier, where he had a number of important cases in hand connected with native lands ; but, notwithstanding this circumstance, on representations being made to him that the accused's liberty depended upon the knov. ledge which he possessed being brought to bear by the counsel for the defence, he consented to act. It was understood from the commencement that ti ouble, time, and expense were not to be spared ; the accused, feelin : ; sure of an acquittal if the defence properly worked up, because it would either cause tile other side to burk inquiry, or bring the truth to light. The expense has been incurred by Mr. Jones, who was unwillingly placed in the position of being compelled to adopt one of two alternatives—either to defend himself well, or go to gaol. He was very properly under ii" restrictions as to the amount he should expend, or the number of solicitors he should engage ; and, as it was with him a matter of life and death, he locked after himself, and thought nothing of the public purse. He has incurred an expense of L 2117 14s. in protecting himself against the persecution of the late Government and its adherents for having somewhat severely criticised the acts of an important public official in j the interests of the people of the Colony, lie was summoned before the Bar of the House in the hope that he would apolo- j

gise ; but he in substance repeated his accusations, and the Government and its friends l"st their heads. Tiiey would have hanged the culprit on the spot; but the law would not permit them to do that, and as they could not sufficiently p'-itify their spitefulness in any other manner, they instructed Mr. Whitaker, die accused, as Attorney-General, to criminally prosecute him in the Supreme Court. Next to hanging, this was as far as they could go. Viewing the circumstances in which the prisoner was placed, Mr. Hislop moved a resolution, which was carried, to the effect that in case of his acquittal, or the jury disatrreeingj the expenses of the suit as between cftr.vnr-*- and client were to be paid by (lie Country. The almost unanimous verdict is that the whole thing was a farce, and that the waste of public money it has entailed almost to criminality; but tho House had been led into the position by Mr. Whitaker, whose virtuous indignation and denial of the charges brought against him gave honorable members the idea that he was innocent, and that there would be no difficulty in extracting an apology from the aggressor, which would help the Government of tho day to retain their seats, and assist speculators in the House to continue their nefarious transactions. The programme, as thus drawn out, was, however, destined to suffer an important alteration, and the House found itself in the position just related. Who is there to object to the payment of the costs incurred ? Certainly not members of Parliament. The writer in the Herald seems to think it unfortunate that the "Treasury is not presided over by the hostile glowering Major Atkinson," who would take very good care that Mr. Jones'counsel should not bepaid too much. Major Atkinson is not a man of that sort, unless he has changed since he left office, and it would come with exceedingly bad grace for one of the hottest advooates for the expenditui'e to now object to the money being paid. The other side of the House—those who did not vote for the tr'al—might more reasonably object. The insinuations of the writer in the Herald that Mr. Hislop was anxious for the prosecution in order that he might participate in the spoil, are contemptible. Not only did Mr. Hislop vote against it with Mr. Rees, but, as we stated in a previous article, he was thoroughly opposed to it. He, above all others, should not have had such a foul charge laid against him. As the accused's solicitor and friend, he, during the period that the subject was being dob: 1 ted in the House—not then being so \ ..:! versed in the transactions referred to in the article which was alleged to be libellous daily impressed upon his mind the desirableness of comintr to an amicable settlement of the matf: , :\ :iud from the time that the House or.h-'.'ed the accused's prosecution in the Supreme Court to the time that lie (the accused) left Wellington he would Lave been glad to see the proj c;>edin'_rs in the Supreme Court quashed. ! Wo thin!-: that we ought to know more about the- facts of the case than the writer in the Herdd, whose statements we brand as lies, and whoso imputations of improper motives to the counsel for iLo defence in the absence of data is infamo'v-:. It is ■absurd for the writer in the to foul annoyed because Mr. Jones did n.-r, T-ut his defence into the hands of Dunedin !!•!•.■ vi'rs. and exhibit that annoyance by

i : inkavowing to rob two of hia brethren iof the money they, for aught he knows, have earned honestly, and, what is worse, to paint their characters as black as his own. So far as we know of Messrs. Rees and Hislop, they are worthy of the name of gentlem-m. We have never heard itsaid that they have laid themselves open to grave accusations ; they are not reputed, as professional men, to have tampered with the cause of justice; nobody has ever charged them with bringing vmnecesary pleadings before the Court for the purpose of getting the costs incident to them : so far as we know, they were never guilty of purchasing stolen telegrams, nor did they ever hire spies for the pixrpose of dogging the steps of a judge of high standing ; neither did they ever conspire with ignorant foreigners to get up a petition for the gratification of their personal spite ; nor are they charged with having received promises of money for using their political influence to obtain the removal of a magistrate, and endeavoring to throw dust iu the eyes of people by garbling a translation so as to conceal a bribe ; nor have they set themselves up as professed purists in legal practice, and manufactured bogus cases for learned judges in their appelate jurisdiction to gratify their personal vanity ; nor were they guilty of a number of other peccadilloes which we might mention as being worse than being "a voluble and vociferous politician." Some lawyers have been accused of such proceedings, but not Messrs. Rees and Hislop. They are men of honor, and as such bear a striking contrast to the writer in the Herald. He says that he may be wrong. We say that there is not the slightest doubt about it. After having insinuated that Messrs. Rees and Hislop made use of their positions as members of Parliament to make money out of Mr. Jones, the writer in the Herald makes this unfortunate admission :—" He is defended by Messrs. Rees and Hislop, who had previously fought and worked hard for him in the House." Xow, how did they interest themselves in his behalf in the House ? —By endeavoring to quash proceedings against him in a Court of law, and, if they had gained the point for which the writer in the the Herald says they worked so hard, it would not, of course, have been necessary for them to appear as his counsel. We would like the explicit writer in the Herald to interpret the meaning of this sentence wlun taken in connection with the rest of his article. Is there anything here to uisqp.nli.'y Messrs Rues and Hislop as members of Parliament 1 If such restrictions were placed upon members of Parliament, the House would be filled by those who would represent themselves and not the people. Then, again, apparently fearing . that the Treasury might pay the bill of costs as it stands, lie gives as his reasons for his suspicion, that those in the "Treasury offices were helped there on the sturdy shoulders of Messrs. Rees and Hislop. ... Is there not just the least possible temptation for the Treasurer to be friendly of attitude ? Past services ought to count for something, and the future is to come." Is there anything here to disqualify Messrs. Rees and Hislop as members of Parliament ? We think not; :::id yet this is all that the writer in the Herald has to lay to their charge

if we leave out those weak parts showiag his feelings of professional jealousy. We were going to ask what one of those Dunedin lawyers, who have the honor of being on terms of intimacy with the writer, and who buzzed around Mr. Whitaker and the Crown Prosecutor at the Dunedin Supreme Court, would have done under the circumstances in which Messrs. Rees and Hislop were placed. Unfortunately, we have no means of judging, because there is not one of them in the House. Let ns now suppose a case, taking as our example a gentleman standing, in his own opinion at least, at the head of the profession. If Mr. Macassey had succeeded in persuading the people of Dunedin—or previously to that, the electors of Waitaki—that he was jit to be their representative in Parliament, would he have refused to take up a case such as Mr. Jones' because he, as a member of the House, had opposed it going into the Supreme Court. Well—we would not care to try him. In the choice language of the writer in the Herald, would any of the " Maoasseys or Stouts, the Smiths, Cooks, Holmeses, Bartons or Dennistons, or Chapmans or Stewarts who ordinarily practice at the Bar here " have turned their heads away in disgust and felt shocked at the prospect of receiving a few hundreds of pounds in the exercise of the legitimate functions of their profession? We have even heard of some lawyers who would not scorn to work illegitimately for a smaller sum. The writer offers an insult to Sir William Fitzherbert when he says, "We anticipate Sir William Fitzherbert's keen eye will detect a very glaring breach of privilege if one shilling is handed aver to I Messrs. Rees and Hislop until after the next meeting of Parliament." He will do nothing of the kind. Eight months ago Mr. Jones was compelled to provide nearly L3OO to defray the preliminary expenses of tho trial, whilst Mr. Whitaker's good name was sought to be upheld at the country's expense, although he was the cause of all the trouble and waste of public money. Would it be just to place Mr. Jones in the position of having to pay the expenses as between attorney and client, or any portion of them, through the refusal of rhe Government to do so, although ordered by a resolution of the House ? It appears to us that the accused has already been treated unfairly in having to defray his private expenses in connection with, the trial. We, however, think that there is little to fear from the writings of our contemporary, which, we repeat, emanated from the pen of a Dunedin solicitor, whose annoyance was so ■ijreat at not being retained as counsel for the defence that he, with others of the same class, almost daily intended the : upremo Court during Mr. Jones' tri.il. and agrtuitously endeavoured to secure the accused's conviction.