Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11943, 17 January 1901, Page 4

According to our Wellington correspondent, a number of Mr SecMon's supporters have taken umbrage at the freedom with which Sir Robert Stout has recently thought fit to express himself, by word of mouth and by pen, on the subject of federation. "It is contended that Sir Robert has practically been engaging in matters political, and that a Supreme Court judge should not so interfere." No one will be inclined to dispute the latter part of this contention, provided that the customary narrow meaning be given to the word " political." The political disinterestedness and aloofness of the judicial bench is one of the safeguards—wo might almost say one of the glories—of the national stability, so far as concerns the administration of justice; and public opinion would never tolerate a public exhibition of party leanings, or an attempt to influence the I electors in a party direction, by occupants of the Supreme Court bench. Has 'Sir Robert Stout been guilty of such an exhibition or such an attempt ? We have no hesitation in answering this question in the negative. Federation is one of those largo, comprehensive questions of national polity which do not lend themselves readily to the small purposes of party,—party on the old lines, at least. It is not, nor is it likely to be, a party question in this colony,—while, on the other hand, it is a subject which specially calls for the exercise of judicial qualities. Speaking and writing more or less from an academic point of view, the Chief Justice has merely stated a number of facts and drawn a few inferences, —showing incidentally, no doubt, the trend of his own inclinations. We are of opinion that he has in no way exceeded his personal rights in following this course. It may be noted tlmt the Lord Chief Justice of England is generally a poor of Parliament, with an unrestricted right to speak and vote in the House of Lords. True, it is a right which is always exercised with restraint and discretion,—though we believe we are correct in saying that Lord Coleridge voted : for the Home Rule Bill when he was Lord Chief in 1893. Certainly he supported the Liberal party more than once in critical divisions. Some of our readers may remember old

Sir Fitzroy Kelly's annual Russophobic ■ harangue when (as Lord Chief Baron) he used to welcome the Lord Mayor to the law courts. We do not seek to justify the course adopted by the 1 Last of the Chief Barons, nor do we wish to see the Chief Justice of New Zealand a member of the Legislative Council, but we ■are as little desirous of subjecting the judges to a gagging process as regards large issues of national and international import. It will perhaps be'said that Sir Robert Stout's offence consists not so much in his expression of more or less definite views respecting federation as in his utterance of certain words criticising "colonial democracies" in his speech at the naval and military banquet at Sydney. After declaring that the government of the Commonwealth oughfe to he characterised by liberty, equality, and fraternity, Sir Robert wont on to say: "I am afraid, however, that we colonial democracies do not always realise what the words liberty, equality, and fraternity mean. Men may not be punished before the law for their expressions of opinion, but the democracy has devised other methods of penalising those who do not see eye to eye with it, and hence we see on political -questions a rampant partyism that will not allow perfect liberty or equality or fraternity to exist in the State." Have these overtrue 'words been too much for the tender consciences of some of the " new Liberals"? We can well believe it, and it must be acknowledged that Sir Robert's warning has a local significance which is painfully obvious, though he may not have been specially thinking about New Zealand. But will the most sensitive Seddonian pretend that such general and harmless—nay, salutarymoralising as tin's ought not to be allowed to a distinguished judge, present by invitation at a great national festival, merely because the cap i 3 found to be rather too noticeable a fit for a section of the dominant party in the judge's own colony? Had the words been uttered at a banquet in New Zealand, a slight party tinge might, perhaps, plausibly be charged to them; but Sir Robert was speaking in Sydney,—he had been chosen to propose the toast of" The Commonwealth Ministry,"—and we say that only a hypersensitive (because guilty) conscience could detect the taint of New Zealand partisanship in his reference to the dangers that beset colonial democracies. We shall be told nest that an oration at the Burns Club has a political significance. We can hardly suppose that Mr Seddon has'given any countenance to this curious " agitation." The Premier would hardly care to have Sir Robert back in the political arena. And it might come to that: for honourable a position though the Chief Justiceship be, Sir Robert Stout is not the man to hold fast to it if he has to submit to ungenerous attacks such as that now said to be imminent. He is doing good work as a judge, however, and (if the more rabid Seddonians will only behave themselves) there is no reason to apprehend a change.