DIGNITY OF COURTS

Taranaki Daily News, 6 August 1934, Page 7

DIGNITY OF COURTS

AMERICAN JUDGE IMPRESSED.

JUDICIAL SYSTEMS COMPARED.

English Court procedure, with its bewigged judges and counsel, archaic phraseology and customs dating back into the mist of centuries, impresses Judge F. J. Schnack, an intermediate circuit judge of Honolulu, who arrived at Wellington on Friday by the Wanganella, as being exceedingly dignified and calculated to engender respect for the law of the land, but he doubts very much whether in the United States, where a man is brought up to regard few as his superior, ceremonial similar to the English could be “put over.” . Judge Schnack is in course of his summer vacation, and, having been to Australia, he is keen to see some of the better known sights of New Zealand before returning to Honolulu. While in Sydney, he took the opportunity of attending a criminal trial there, in which two men were charged with conspiring to defraud another. What particularly impressed him was the “courteousness” of the counsel engaged in the case. For instance, he said, when counsel for the prosecution made certain statements which certainly would have been challenged in an American Court of law, counsel for the other side raised no objection whatsoever. Judge Schnack was also rather surprised at the frequency at which the judge interjected and asked questions of barristers and of witnesses. In America, he said, the judge generally contented himself with merely listening to the case as it was presented to him, and, of course, though he had a perfect right to ask what he liked, he would soon be considered partial to a particular side if questions appeared to be too much in a certain direction. In other words, the conduct of the case in American Courts was generally left to the barristers, and the judge interfered very little. “In our trials,” Judge Schnack continued, “if counsel for defendant considers that an improper question is. being asked, he immediately springs to his feet and objects to it.” . . The judge was assured by his interviewer that counsel for defendant would also spring to his fet and object to a question he considered improper in. a New Zealand Court, but the objection would merely be a formal one, and the argument proper would be developed at the proper time. There was no question that the wearing of wigs and gowns in a Court did lend dignity and inspire respect, he continued, but he was afraid that the American attitude that each man was the equal of the other would preclude the adoption of such ceremonial in American Courts, although the whole of American jurisprudence was founded on that of England. He was very afraid that it would be very hard to. “put over.” But, of course, there was a little of that ceremonial in America Supreme Courts, where judges were robed, and that lent a measure of dignity to the superior Courts of jurisdiction. Judge Schnack confessed that he did not favour the system followed by some States of appointing judges by popular vote; it certainly led the way to graft and corruption. That procedure was mostly followed in cities such as New Vork, Chicago and San Francisco, where there was a large number of Courts, but in other places they were appointed by the Government. In Honolulu, for instance, which was a territory and not a State, judges and indeed the governor, were appointed from the Federal Capital, Washington. Judge Schnack said that Honolulu was a city about the size of Wellington. Compared With the mainland of America and other countries of the world, the effects of the world depression had been relatively lightly rett in Hawaii, although there was some unemployment. The basic industry was not “tourists,” but sugar, other important products being pineapples, bananas and coffee. A common law system, based on the English, was followed, and there were the usual Police Courts, intermediate circuit Courts presided over by four judges, of which he was one, and the Supreme Court, which had three judges. ,