The Timaru Herald. TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1895.

Timaru Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 1832, 6 August 1895, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1895.

The lamented death of Mr Justice Richmond causes a vacancy on the Supreme Court Bench, which must be.fijled up as speedily as possible if the public interests are not to suffer. When Mr Justice Johnston died m 1888, the Atkinson Ministry kept the appointment of his successor m abeyance for many months. At that time Judge Ward was acting temporarily as a Supreme Court Judge, having accepted the position when Mr Justice Johnston's health became so bad as to necessitate a prolonged leave of absence. After Mr Justice Johnston's death Judge Ward's temporary appointment was continued until at length, m the latter end of January, 1889, Mr Justice Denniston was elevated to the Supreme Court Bench and Judge Ward resumed his old position m the District Court. It had been believed very generally that he would be promoted as soon as Mr Justice Johnston's death was announced, but the Atkinson Government never thought of making the appointment. From the first they had determined to pass over Judge Ward's claims and make a selection from the practising Bar. Yet those claims were undoubtedly very strong, and it is not going too far to say that they ought to have been admitted. We are no advocates of the French system, under which Judges are promoted as a matter of course from one court to another as vacancies occur. A " climbing Judge," on the lookout for promotion from the Government of the

day, is subject to the temptation of making himself agreeable to them m cases m which they, as representing the State, take an interest. There are of course plenty of men who are not open to such influences, but nevertheless- human nature is weak, and it is as well that Judges should be safeguarded from themselves. That consideration might have been of weight when Judge Ward was first asked to take his seat temporarily on the Supreme Court Bench, but it lost its force when he had served the turn of the Government on several occasions and for comparatively lengthened periods. He had been on the Supreme Court Bench as locumtenens more than once before he was called upon to relieve Mr Justice Johnston, and upon each occasion he had given satisfaction. He had ably discharged the duties of the high office entrusted to him, and his law had stood the test of appeal. What made Judge Ward's claim stronger m 1888, and up to the time that he was passed over for another, was that his services were utilised for months after Mr Justice Johnston's death. Judge Ward was then no longer locum tenens for another man, for that man was sleeping m his grave, and still no appointment was made. In 1888 we wrote as follows: — "To seat a Judge on the Supreme Court Bench temporarily is an admission that he is fit for the position, and gives him some claim to be considered when a vacancy occurs. To send him there more than once, and to continue him m temporary possession of the office for a lengthened period after a permanent appointment should have been made, ought to render his claim irresistible." Such was our opinion m 1888, and we still hold it now that another Supreme Court Judgeship is vacant. Judge Ward is still doing active duty as a District Court Judge, and the lapse of time has strengthened his claims by enlarging his experience as an administrator of justice. Let us see what Mr Seddon's opinion of Judge Ward's claims was m 1888. He was then m opposition, and the whirligig of time has not only given him office but has made him Premier of the colony. On the 26th June, 1888, on the motion that the House go into Committee of Supply, Mr Seddon moved as an amendment "that it is inadvisable that the Government should longer delay the appointment of a Judge to fill the vacancy caused by the death of the late Judge Johnston." Mr Seddon made pointed allusion to the multitude of articles which had appeared m the newspapers, relative to the delay that had taken place m the making of an appointment, and he deprecated the mentioning of any particular name m connection with it. Nevertheless he himself, whilst mildly censuring the press for having been so out-spoken, did not hesitate to use these words (as reported m Hansard) :— "I will say this : that, as far as the course taken by the press is concerned [the mentioning of the name], I do not agree with it. Judge Ward should undoubtedly get the position ; still, it was inadvisable for the press to urge the claims of any particular person ; and m moving as I now do I do not urge any one's claims." But there is Mr Seddon's plain declaration that Judge Ward ought to be appointed. He could not then give effect to his views. He now has the opportunity, and, as we have already said, Judge Ward's claims are stronger m 1895 than they were m 1888.