ROYAL COMMISSIONS

Southland Times, Issue 19458, 24 January 1925, Page 5

ROYAL COMMISSIONS

SHOULD JUDGES ACT? DISPUTES CONCERNING THE GOVERNMENT. CHIEF JUSTICE AGAINST PROPOSAL. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, January 23. Copies of correspondence between the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice on the subject of two proposed Commissions has been handed to the Press. TWO COMMISSIONS. The first letter, addressed to the Chief Justice, is as follows:—< “I have the honour to request your consideration of the proposal that a Judge of the Supreme Court should sit, either alone or as a President of three, upon two commissions under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1908. On a previous occasion you intimated to me your view that a Judge of the Supreme Court should not be asked to sit on a Commission where the conduct of the Executive Government is called into question, and in both ,the proposed Commissions to which I am about to refer it is clear that the conduct of the Executive would be a cardinal matter in the intended inquiry. “The first proposed Commission is one in which a Committee of the House of Representatives has recommended that a Judge of the Supreme Court be asked to sit. The matter involved is a complaint by the Woolston Tanneries Co., established near Christchurch, that the company suffered injury by reason of a number of unfair acts of the Executive, one of such acts being the removal of the embargo which had been placed during the war upon the export of hides from New Zealand. The averments of petitioners are practically that certain officers of the Government were influenced by hostility to the company in the advice they gave the Government. Another complaint is that the removal of the embargo was. contrary to the spirit of a request that had been made to the company (by the Board of Trade) to continue its operations of tanning, on the assumption that the embargo on export would continue. Incidentally, there are many suggestions of malevolence on the part of Hon. Mr Nosworthy, Minister of Agriculture, and in charge of the Departments whose acts are complained of. “The second proposed Commission is an inquiry into certain charges made by Mr W. I). Lysnar, M.P. for Gisborne, against the Government, and especially against Mr Nosworthy, Minister of Agriculture, for its conduct in having given assent to a sale by the National Bank of New Zealand, as mortgagees of a certain meat works in Poverty Bay, to Messrs Vestey Bros. This is alleged to have given facilities for the operations of meat trusts, in contravention of statements made by the Government that they were opposed to such trusts. Incidentally, there are serious charges against Mr David Jones, Chairman of the Meat Board, consequent on the consent of the Meat Control Board having been given to the same transaction. “As it is impossible for me to suggest that the appointment of a Judge as a Commissioner, whether alone or as President in either Commission, would not necessarily involve his inquiry into any report upon the conduct and motives of the Executive, as well as the Executive officers, I desire, before making any request to your Honour that a Judge or Judges should be at liberty to accept appointment on either Commission, to inquire whether your Honour’s previously noted objection is still in force. It would, I submit, be an advantage for the future, as well as for the present, that some clear indication should be given by yourself and by members of the Bench of their view on the point.” (Signed) F. H. D. Bell, Attorney-General. CHIEF JUSTICE’S REPLY. To this the Chief Justice replied as follows : “I have consulted their Honours the Judges in reference to your suggestion that one of them should act as Chairman, of one or two Commissions, one regarding a dispute about a tannery in Canterbury, which dispute has already been before a Parliamentary Committee, and the other regarding the treatment of what is termed a meat trust. If the disputants have a legal claim, the Courts are open to them. I assume that neither of the disputes can come before the Courts, and this being so, it seems to me plain that the disputes bear a political aspect, and that the conduct of Ministers and members of Parliament may be involved. This being so, I am of opinion that it would be exceedingly inconvenient for such disputes to be dealt with by judicial officers. Parliament, or two specially appointed citizens should, in my opinion, be the tribunal that should deal with the question. I have consulted the Judges, and have heard from 411 but one, and find they are of my opinion, though they are ever desirous of assisting in any way they legitimately can to settle differences amongst our people. I hope, therefore, that on further consideration no request will be made for them to intervene in any way in such disputes.” (Signed) Robert Stout. Chief Justice. GOVERNMENTS DECISION. The Attorney-General responded to-day as follows: “T have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 20th inst., in reply to mine of December 30 last, dealing with certain proposals that a Judge of the Supreme Court be invited to preside on Commissions to be issued under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1908, where the subject matter of the inquiry involves the conduct of the Government or Executive officers. I beg leave to express the thanks of the Government to yourself and to members of the Supreme Court Bench for the consideration given to my letter, and to inform your Honour that the Government will act in accordance with the view expressed in your letter.” (Signed) F. H. D. Bell. Attorney-General