The Timaru Herald SATURDAY, JUNE 10, 1933. “PEACE FOR TEN YEARS.”

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19512, 10 June 1933, Page 8

The Timaru Herald SATURDAY, JUNE 10, 1933. “PEACE FOR TEN YEARS.”

Sir John Simon’s masterly exposition on the scope and purpose of the Four Power Pact, ought to reassure the smaller European Powers of the good intentions of the signatories of the new Pact. Supporters of the Pact suggest that such an “agreement of understanding and co-operation,” will ensure the peace of Europe for ten years. If it does half that, it will bo a heaven-sent boon to bewildered humanity. Doubtless the average citizen will feel somewhat baffled, however, by the long procession of pacts, agreements, and treaties which have been signed within recent years; all designed to provide the machinery for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, and the promotion of closer cooperation between the nations of Europe in tackling the difficulties that from time to time confront them. Sir John Simon has gone to some pains to point out, however, that throughout the negotiations it was made clear that the proposed agreement should in no sense be.regarded as a substitute for, or as set in opposition to, the Covenant of the League. “It is not a piece of rival or competing machinery,” Sir John explains, “but is framed for the purpose of operating within the ambit of the Covenant, and is intended to aid in the maintenance of the principles for which it stands. The methods and procedures which may be studied or adopted under the agreement are strictly in accordance with the spirit of the Covenant.” The decision of the four leading nations of Europe— Britain, France, Germany and Italy—to conclude another Pact has not unnaturally aroused a certain measure of suspicion among the smaller countries. Pointed questions have been asked in the chancelleries of Europe. It is suggested that if the purpose of the new Pact is to contribute something towards the maintenance of the peace of Europe, why should the smaller countries (which are closely involved by way of alliance with the participating Powers) be excluded from the negotiations that yielded the new Pact. This point has been taken up by the British Minister of Foreign Affairs. “I have been at pains to explain the attitude of his Majesty’s Government in this matter to the representatives of other Powers, and particularly to Belgium, Poland, and the Little Entente,” says Sir John. “By the form which the proposed agreement has finally assumed I am confident that any such erroneous impression will be completely eradicated: “I may refer in particular, in this connection, to the last paragraph in the preamble to the agreement, which specifically states that the lour Powers are mindful of the rights of every State, which cannot be affected without the consent of the interested party. There can therefore be no possible doubt that the object of the agreement is to ensure over many years to come that France, Germany, Italy, and ourselves may agree in Europe upon the same policy of peace. That is an object which must be generally approved, and it is entirely consistent with the aim and spirit of the League Covenant, and with due respect for the rights of other Powers.”

With an eye on the tragic experiences of the victims of Japanese aggression in tire Far East, the French authorities are insisting that the British and American Governments must be prepared to declare what steps they would take in the event of a violation of any convention negotiated. So far, Europe has been provided with ample pacts and treaties that outlaw war as an instrument of national policy. That does not satisfy France, whose Prime Minister is now insisting (although the ink on the new Pact is hardly dry), that disarmament can be achieved only by budget control backed by a Pact ensurin international action against any member violating a convention, and in this attitude he has the backing of common sense drawn from t lie grim lessons of the past. MOKE WORK FOR J.P’S. Speaking out of a heart that had been warmed by the little social attentions paid him by representatives of the Justices’ Association, the Minister of Justice talked rather carelessly in Christchurch of the investigation he was making which might result in the services of justices being called on much more frequently than at present:

“I am afraid that out here we do not make full use of our justices of the peace,” said the Minister after commending the importance of their work, “At Home a stipendiary magistrate is very seldom a lawyer. He is usually a retired soldier and the bulk of the work is done by the justices of the peace, who are on the bench with him.

“I have been wondering whether we could do a little in this direction in New Zealand. I have already consulted one or two prominent men on the question whether we could not make greater use of justices of the peace. After all, they have good commonsense and business knowledge, and those are the main things.”

If, however, the Minister was indulging in some little pleasantries, in an attempt to please his hosts, the suggestion that justices of the peace might be given an

opportunity to take more Court work has not been regarded as a piece of sweet nothingness by the stern world beyond the social atmosphere that prompted the Minister’s pronouncement. In Christchurch the opinion is generally held that the men most qualified to administer the law are those trained and experienced in it. It is admitted that justices of the peace give valuable service to the community without payment, hut their functions should not be extended to work for which they were not fully qualified. The Minister mentioned that he thought something after the style of the English system, where justices sit on the Bench in quorum, might be adopted in New Zealand, but one authority on legal matters recalls that the English system is not without critics: While one authority in England had described justices as “men who, though not lawyers and therefore apt to be ill-informed in some of their decisions, carry out a large part ol the administration of the law with good sense and impartiality,” another • has referred to them as "men . . . often bigoted and prejudiced.”

From Dunedin comes a prompt protest. There, the Minister's suggestion found little favour, since it was urged that the practice would occasion greater expense to the country - and litigants owing to the increased number of appeals that would result. A leading barrister said:

“None but a man with extensive legal training Is competent to undertake the administration of justice, except in the most trivial cases. This applies with greater force nowadays, when much wider jurisdiction has been conferred on Inferior Courts.”

It is generally recognised, of course, that many justices fancy they could quite readily take the place of magistrates. The Minister says that he has faith in the “commonsense and business experience” of the justices of the peace. More than that is required. As a matter of fact, even the present occupants of the magisterial bench, with all their training and experience, can give anomalous decisions; but what could he expected of the men who would find their way on to the bench without legal training and with hut this to recommend them, that they have not sufficient business on their hands to engage them at full time, and that they have been raised to the dignity of the commission of peace because they have found favour with some politician of the loaves and fishes type. The Minister of Justice might have felt like saying something to flatter the spokesmen of the justices of the peace, but we rather fancy that if he moved to put his suggestion into effect, he would be overwhelmed by protests from end to end of New Zealand; indeed, the principal objection to justices of the peace taking more Court work is fundamental because they are so thoroughly mixed up in the every day affairs of the community that they could not bring the necessary qualifications to bear, such as are possessed by the magistrates and judges who are isolated and inaccessible, and withal independent, by reason of the security of their hold on the highest judicial positions in the land.