MR HISLOP AT OAMARU.

Otago Witness, Issue 1973, 12 September 1889, Page 22

MR HISLOP AT OAMARU.

MEETING OF ELECTORS.

(From Our. Special Reporter.) Oamauu, September 11.

Mr T. W. Hislop addressed the electors in the Public Hall to-night. The meeting was the engrossing subject of conversation during the day, aud the hall was filled in every parb a few minutes after the doors were opened. A number of ladies occupied seats in the dress circle. Mr A. J. S. Headland was in the chair.

The Chairman expressed a hope that the meeting would give Mr Hislop's address serious consideration, and stated that fche candidate would answer any questions that might be asked.

Mr Hislop, who was received with cheers, said that there were two reasons for which he bespoke their most earnest attention. The first was that he was suffering from relaxed throat, and the second was that of all tho occasions he had appeared before them to seek their suffrages, this was the most important, because principles were involved in the consideration he would lay before them such as never engaged their attention before. He read the letter addressed by him to the Premier on the 2nd September tendering his resignation, and the Premier's reply of the 4th September requesting him to reconsider it. After receipt of this letter he met the Premier on several occasions, and explained to him that if public duty such as the passing of important bills required that he should remain in the Ministry he would consider that as paramount to his own feelings with regard to his own self-respect ; but inasmuch as he found the matter was being made the instrument by which all public business was, obstructed, he deeaaed it his duty to press his resignation, and to jnform the Premier that he had also forwarded his resignation to the Speaker. He was there that night to explain the reasons which appeared to him in taking so decided a step. Tho question was one of very serious import not only to himself, but to the country at large ; and they might judge that ib was no small consideration that would induce any member of the Ministry to quit an office which gave him power for good in legislation and administration. There were many

MISAPPREHENSIONS as to the true position of the judicial benches in relation to the constitution of the colony. Many regarded the bench as a fetish that no person had a right to look at, and aud whose doiDgs no person had a right to question — as if it was apart from the constitution under which we lived : as if the occupant of the b^nch were not as responsible as everything else was to the public will. He intended to quote authority to show that the judicial bench, like everything else in a democratic community, was responsible to the institutions in the community itself. The question at issue was not a, question between the Supreme Court bench and himself, but between a subordinate branch of the judicial institution and himself, and he thought he could show that throughout the whole of the unhappy affair he had acted not only in accord with the decisions that had been laid down 'from time immemorial, but in accord with common sens 3 and common justice, and he thought he would also be able to show that whit was laid down in the past was founded upon a just application of the relative position of the judicial benches and the Government. He quoted from Professor Hearn, who , was generally regarded as one of the highest authorities on constitutional law to the following effect : — " In any circumstances, and on general principles the tendencies of the beuch are to call for unceasing vigilance from the representatives of the people." If he came from a constitutional writer such as Professor Hearn, and took the words of the wisest, most philosophical, most learned, and most upright mind that had ever occupied the judicial bench in this colony — he meant Justice Richmond— he found that he stated that he gloried that the occupants of the judicial bench were liable to • have their conduct investigated at any time, and that he looked upon that as a guarantee of the purity of administration of justice in the court's. It was only right that it should be so. There should be no part of the constitution not dependent to some extent upon other parts of the constitution.

An elector created considerable interruption at this stage by persisting in an attempt to speak, and he was eventually ejected amid some disorder.

Mr Hislop, resuming, said that the highest tribunal in the land, composed of the Supreme Court bench and Court of Appeal, was responsible to Parliament, and its conduct was fair matter for investigation by Parliament. But below the judge of the Supreme Court there were a number of judicial functionaries whose offices were not held in the same way. The judges of district courts, resident magistrates, justices of the peace, all held the same tenure — namely, tenure at the will of the Government. Upon this point he read the following extract from a letter received by him from the Attorneygeneral in reply to a letter of his own : —

Thanks for the Ward correspondence. Ifc was very necessary in your interests that it should be printed, because garbled statements were being accepted as facts. Now that the whole case is before the Dublic your friends will have no occasion to «ing small. It is very satisfactory, and seems to me, apart from the main point, to establish three definite propositions :—: — First, That had there been an appeal Ward could never have convicted Christie of the offence charged, i c., on the evidence before him. Second. That Saving convicted the man of an offence which be knew was not substantiated in the evidence, he tried to justify his conduct by bringing into the case considerations that were nob before the court at the trial, and which, if in the mind of the judge, he was in duty bound to put on one side, and not content with beinp; moved by such motives himself, he sought to influence the Minister's mind to support acts by a private suggestion of the same fco him Thirdly and lastly, that Ward ia absolutely wrong re mandamus. Fancy a judge pretending that the Supreme Court would compel a debtor and defaulting mortgagor of a company to hold the balance of justice in a proceeding by ifc against another of its debtors, and that fche case of Knglehart (12 W.R)has fche slightest bearing on fche case of Christie. How can the public have any faith in the administration of justice if such ideas f are held as to the consideration which should hinder a judge from attempting to hold the balance between litigants ; or, if a judge at a diofcsnee of 100 miles from fche judgment seat instructs fche clerk of a court to make substantial alterations in orders of imprisonment, and, if needs be, to issue new ones in cakes where he knows the court itself could not do so after having once closed tho sittings ? I can see nothing wrong in what you have done ; but by revealing the result you have got into a scrape, and for a 'politician that is rather a serious raatOer. I think your long memorial completely clears you, but ifc requires a long memo., and that is to your disadvantage. I have read over to-night tbe " Hansard " sheets you sent me containing your sppeahes on fche Judge Ward business, and must think f.he papers have proved that you were young enough and courageous enough to puc aside fche obvious danger of misrepresentation of your own motives — moreover, fco expedite the course of justice. In the like circumstances I have and should have the like courage, but am nofc sure of myself. I think we agree that the possible interpretation that a Minister having a private interest is interfering with the courts, which i 3 a different matter from the misinterpretation of motive affecting yourself only, should have received more consideration from you ; but, in my view, fchafc should bave no weight against fche argument in favour of expediting the petition and report thereto. It has only weight in the consideration of the question

whether you should in your letter have referred to the question of the judge's interest in the case. . I will not say that your action was calm, or that it was in every reßpeot well judged, but I do say aud maintain that it was honourable, just, aud right, and leaves you nothing to look hack upon with reproaoh. I have carefully read the correspondence in re Ward, and your speech on the 9th Autiusfc, and you have completely vindicated yourself. It was, of course, somewhat unfortunate that your firm should have been acting for ChrUfcie, but that does not affect the issue in the case— the maintenance of justice in all its purity.

Mr Hislop said he had explained the position of the Supreme Court judges, and the position with regard to the inferior olficers was that they were directly responsible to the Minister of Justice, and it was he who ought to keep a vigilant watch over their doings, and correct them if they went outside the rules that ought to regulate judicial officers. In relating the circumstances which formed the basis of the correspondence in this matter, he impressed upon them that it was not a question of individuals, but

A QUESTION OF PRINCIPLES.

(Applause.) He wished to remind them that the principles which they adopted during that election were principles that had a direct and very great bearing upon the interests of the community, and were principles that would have a great effect in the conduct of the courts long after the persons interested in them had passed away. — (Applause.) For his part he obliterated from his view persons. He saw placed before him a great question as to the position Ministers should occupy in relation to the judicial bench. It had been attempted to show that he took part in the proceedings at the trial, but that attempt had miserably failed. After the trial was over, after Christie had been convicted and sentenced, there was presented to him a petition, and among those that signed that petition were many persons who now turned round on him and blamed him for taking action on their own representations. — (Applause.) The petition made statements which, if true, showed that a judicial injustice had been committed ; that there was an utter misconception on the part of the judge of the facts that were brought before him ; that there was a misconception as to the ownership of the property which Christie was convicted of having appropriated to his own use, and which, if true, showed that one was suffering a wrong innocently. That petition being pressed on him, it became his duty either to forward it to Wellington direct for the purpose of transmission to the judge for consideration by him, or send it direct to the judge himself, and he decided thai the humane and worthy course would be to send it to the judge direct. The Premier approved of this course, and the petition was forwarded to the judge, with a request that he would report, not to him (Mr Hislop), but to the Minister of Justice. It had been alleged that he pushed the Minister of Justice aside. That was an innocent misconception in the first instance, but it became a malicious untruth when repeated by persons who knew the circumstances. The fact was that the Minister of Justice was absent at the time from Wellington, beyond the reach of telegraphic communication, and. the Premier was in Wellington alone, overweighted with work, for he had the unfortunate Fisher correspondence on hand, besides tho ordinary work of his department. The speaker considered it a kindness to relieve the Premier as much as possible ; aud besides, up to the time he left Wellington he had been acting as Minister of Justice in • the absence of Mr Fergus. He thought no question really arose as to his action in forwarding the petition. A parallel had been drawn between what he did and what he had complained of Judge Ward afterwards doing, but the, cases were different. The judge not only set the matter in motion by ordering an examination to take place, but sat on the bench and finally determined the thing, whereas all he (Mr Hislop) did was to send to the judge a petition instituted and signed by others. The next stage at which he was brought into the matter was with regard to'the question brought

IN THE HOUSF

and there he was bitterly attacked by certain individuals on the matter. A discussion was caused in the House on, he thought, the 9th August upon a question asked by Mr Larnach, and a debate took place on a motion for the adjournment proposed by himself. During the debate he explained all that had taken plnce, and revealed everything in a perfectly candid spirit. Following the motion for adjournment, there was a motion by Mr Larnach to set up a committee of investigation. The Government resisted the motion, and stated that the matter was before the House and the correspondence was before the House. If anything was required to demonstrate that a committee was unnecessary it was the fact that, notwithstanding what took place afterwards in the Legislative Council, the whole matter rested on the correspondence. During the debate the leader of the Opposition stated distinctly that if the allegations against Judge Ward were true, then Judge Ward was not fit to remain on the judicial bench, and ought forthwith to be removed. He (Mr Hialop) did not go nearly so far. He stated that he was struggling, not for the removal of Judge Ward, but for the establishment of a principle regulating the judge's action. He said that he did not consider because a judge or any other officer on one or two occasions did not adhere to that principle that it was necessary to remove him. — (Applause.) The next proceeding was the constitution of

A COMMITTEE OP THE UPPER, HOUSE. One would have supposed that where a committee was formed to consider the action of a Minister, that the Minister would in ordinary fairness have been consulted as to the constitution of the committee, but no such thing was done. After criticising the composition of the committee and pointing out that only two of its members belonged to the Ministerial party, he asked if a person, knowing the strong party feeling that found its way into the Upper House, would say such a committee was likely to be a fair committee. When the correspondence was first printed, the chairman of that committee told him that he looked on the judge's conduct as highly irregular, improper, and inexcusable ; and another member, who voted with the majority in the committee, said he considered the. conduct of the judge was wrong and that Mr Hislop was to be commended for the action he took".. After the committee was formed he, hesitated as to whether he should give evidence, but was told by his colleague, who waa a member of the committee, that it intended to make an exhaustive inquiry, to report the facts to the Legislative Council, and to make no report as to their opinion. He still hesitated, until on one occasion after a witness had given evidence he met a member of the committee (Mr Buckley) in the lobby. Mr Buckley told him that he strongly advised him" as a friend to give evidence. He (Mr Hiblop) stated that under those circumstances he had nn objection to give evidence. The order of reference empowered the committee to report on the circumstances which occasioned the correspondence between Ministers and Judgo Ward. Three matters gave occasion to the correspondence. Firstly, the judgment; secondly, tbe petition ; and thirdly, the point that the judge had written a private letter tending to prejudice defendant in the eyes of the Minister of Justice. Not into one of these questions did the committee trouble to inquire) but

they went entirely beyond them. They first sought to throw, discredit on the Government by endeavouring to show that the Government intervened to do away with the prison regulations. In that they miserably failed. They then attempted to show that he interfered with the ordinary course of justice, and there also they miserably failed. They then came back to the correspondence, and to give a sample of the way in which the committee went to work to get to its evidence, he (Mr Hislop) referred to the evidence regarding the value of the land mortgaged by Judge Ward. to a particular compauy concerned in the Christie prosecution. _ The property and local tax returns, which were open to the public generally, showed that whereas the debt to the company was £850, the value of the property was put down at £820 ; and as interest was always accruing, they might say the property was worth £50 less than the. amount of the debt. There were different persons in the House who knew the value of the land. Being aware that Mr Valentine, who was manager ot the company iv Southland, must know the value of the land, the committee sent a message for the purpose of having him as well as Mr Larnach examined. Mr Larnach was called, and in a free and easy way said the land was worth twice the amount of the mortgage. Notwithstanding that the judge had valued the land at £850, Mr Larnach in a jaunty way valued it at something like £1500. He would like to draw their attention to this gentleman, Mr Larnach. This was the gentleman who in the first instance moved in the matter in the House, who was very mindful of appearances, and who wished to pose as a protector of justice and upholder of good t&sie. Mr Larnach was the gentleman who was Colonial Treasurer in the time of the Grey Ministry in 1877, and was the gentleman who went Home with the joint purpose of helping to float the loan of 1877 and of floating thi3 company in Southland. He (Mr Hislop) believed Mr Larnach was one of the agents who induced a green public in London to give such a price for the land adjoining this, and had left the shareholders minus their capital, aud the property practically iv the hands of the debenture-holders ; so he thought his valuation could not be taken as worth much. He had previously seen Mr Valentine, 'who had told him the land was worth about £2 an acre, instead of £3 10s, as valued by Lawson. Mr Valentine was not called. He submitted that was a significant fact. Instead of Mr Valentine giving evidence, a member of the committee who was to sit as a judge gave his evidence ; and he thought that was also a significant fact. In face of the fact that the adjoining land, which was superior land, was only valued for the property tax at £2 7s 6d per acre, Mr Reynolds valued this land at £3 10a. He mentioned that to show the utter want of candour and want of fairness of the inquiry of the Legislative Council. He asked them to say with him that the committee had not performed its duties, inasmuch as it had not investigated, whether the judgmeut was good or not, as it had not investigated the facts upon which the judgment was rounded, a 8 it had not adhered to its own resolution as to tbe limits it, would go, and as it hod not called the best evidence regarding the various matters brought before it. He knew his action had been adversely criticised iv this parD ©f the colony, and by a great portion of the press, and he did not intend to answer the criticism of that press ; but he thought he could satisfy them that in almost every instance the opinions of the press had been influenced by matters. outside the real question at issue. As he considered that underlying the matber was' a question , of grave import to the colony as a whole, he conceived it to be his duty, so that the subject might be fairly and properly brought before the country, to review his position in' order to discuss the matter with them, and afterwards it might Be discussed before the colony as a whole. He had the satisfaction of knowing that he had the support of some of

THE FIRST AUTHORITIES IN THE COLONY, and he desired to read the opinions of some of the leading' barristers. He then read extracts from several letters. He also read an article from the Melbourne Argus, to which he appealed as showing a good knowledge of the whole story and being in striking contrast to the pettiness of the articles in this colony itself. If there was anything further wanting to show that he was right, it was the generous, philosophical, and statesmanlike views expressed by Sir George Grey — (cheers) — in his speech on the question ; and he would like to pay a tribute of praise to Sir George Grey, as contrasted with the narrow, bigoted spirit that actuated another member of the House, who waited till he (Mr Hislop) had resigned for the purpose of passing animadversions upon him. He said tlrt Sir George Grey stood out in magnificent relief to such a miserable spirit as actuated that member. — (Applause.) Having given the vit-wa of those who were opposed to him, and of,.those who upheld him, he now proposed to give

HIS OWN VIEWS. Vague rumours had been spread throughout the colony as to his interference with justice. If his enemies in the Upper House could have convicted him of interference with justice, he had no doubt they would have done so, but they had failed iv that. The same remark applied to the House of Representatives, and all that they could find fault with was the manner in which he carried out his duties. The question raised in his mind was whether a judge under certain circumstances related to him had a right to sit on a certain case. He had many authorities to show that a judge had no right to sit on a case in which by kindred or other causes he might be supposed, to be biased on one side or the other. — (Applause.) When he contended for that principle he contended for it in the abstract, and he withed to see the wholesome principle he had enunciated regulating all the judicial officers in the colony. — (Renewed applause.) He maintained that he would have been a moral coward if he had not reported to the Minister of Justice the circumstances arising in this particular case — (Applause.) He was free to admit that, considering the way in which one's motives might be interpreted, it was an unwise thing of him to have written directly to Judge Ward; that was to say, it would have been more in the way of the world generally to have done indirectly that which he did straightforwardly and directly. — (Applause.) He might have erred in the manner in wbich he drew attention to the fact regard ing the administration of justice, but what he had done was done in the interests of upholding the wholesome rule laid down from time immemorial and recognised as being the outcome of common sense and common justice, and he claimed that it would be improper to condemn him for having acted with over boldness and over straightforwardness when the main principle for which he contended was a correct principle, — (Cheers.) There was much more involved in this question than appeared at first sight. Here was a struggle going on between THE NATURAL RIGHTS OP MAHKIND AND CAPITAL. We paw it in almost every phase in which wo liked to look at society, considering the important parb the judicial system took in upholding the interests of the ordinary run of the community against the interests of those possessed of capital. What did they see going on around them now?— (A Voice: u Poverty,"— Load

laughter.) He asked if that meeting was content to allow their judicial officers to place themselvs under obligations to capital, so that the pure administration of justice might be looked on as a thing of the past ; whether they wished to keep their judges, to whom they paid sufficiently large salarisf, out of the speculative field, so that the administration of "justice might not be looked upon with suspicion aud discontent.— (Cheers.) He had endeavoured, notwithstanding the gross provocation he had received, to lay the question fairly before them, and without exaggeration. He had endeavoured to speak without temper. He had endeavoured to place before them the question as it affected the commuuit.y at large. Ht had endeavoured to place before them the pertinent question as to whether their judiciaries should be kept free from reproach, and if the outcome of the election was that the community showed an appreciation of the proper rules that had been laid down, he thought his resignation and consequent inconvenience to himself and the electors would not have been in vain.— (Cheers.) He had sufficient confidence in the honesty and faithfulness of the electorate to believe that they, at all events, would not see anyone suffer for upholding the tr«e principles which he had enunciated regarding the judicial bench of this colony, and he believed the struggles he had made regarding the administration of justice were commended by that meeting as well as by the electorate. Unless they had justice administered in such a way as was above suspicion, impartial and satisfactory to the public, they had removed the one safety which remained to a democratic community.

After having spoken for an hour and 40 minutes Mr Hislop resumed his seat amid loud choers, mingled with slight hisses.

Mr Alexander Watson proposed a vote of confidence in Mr Hislop. Having known Mr Hislop for 14 or 15 years, he paid that his actions during that time would compare with those of any person in New Zealand.

Mr J. S Roberts seconded the resolution, which was declared to be carried unanimously, and the meeting broke up with three cheers for Mr Hialop.

Mr Dunn, the mayor, has announced his candidature to-day, and it is rumoured that Mr Frith -w lll withdraw in his favour. Mr Hislop is expected to address two more meetings.