THE FUTILE ISITT.

Observer, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10, 16 November 1912, Page 2

THE FUTILE ISITT.

And the King's Counsel

THEEE is no one quite so petty in Parliament as that good man Leonard . Isitt. He vises the method . of his : kind—abuse without argument, assertion without fact, emotional balderdash, unthinking oceans of'words. ■ His latest stupidityis to affect a belief that there is something' political about the appointment of a bunch of leading lawyers as King's Counsel. For instance, although he knows nothing of law he objects to the appointment of Mr C. B. ' Morison " because I have not

heard of him as one.of the most die-, tinguished lawyers in New Zealand." It is clear that he who is unknown to Mr Isitt is unworthy to be known. As a matter of fact, Mr Morisen is the New Zealand authority on company law, but as he has not received the esteemed patronage of the New Zealand Alliance he has no right to apply for silk.

" One of the Auckland appointments," said this , delightful detractor, "was distinctly suggestive in view of recent developments/ It. is just as fully and distinctly suggestive as was the appointment of Sir Francis Bacon,, the first of the kind. But the maggot in the bud is evidently to be found in the assurance of the perenially bitter M.P. that he had read a letter from a Christchurch lawyer saying that Christchurch had been snubbed ! The suggestion is, of course, that as Christchurch is represented by a " Liberal" politician it is punished by being passed over. Nothing,, of course, could be more absurd. The appointment as King's Counsel would be a barren one to a minor lawyer simply because no one would employ a minor lawyer who is bound by his order to charge a certain scale of fees and whose services would never be bought if he was unlikely to give value. The suggestion is too that His Majesty the King has given the right of preaudience to these New Zealand barristers at the dictation of party politicians in the least important of his dominions, that these three gentlemen who are called to " truly counsel the King in his matters when they shall be called and duly and truly minister the King's matters" cannot possibly be eminent enough to do so,, because they are not on the same side of the political fence as Leonard Isitt !

A further suggestion of the delightfully kind, considerate and gentlemanly Isitt is that a man who is an entlmsiastic supporter of the " Reform Party " has no right to apply for silk, and that it should be withheld from him because of his political beliefs. Attorney-General Herdman is one of the most honourable men in New Zealand, and it is evident that he was surprised at the meanness of the attack, the ignorance of the attacker, and the suggestion that the appointments were political. If it were possible for the appointments to be absolutely political (and it is not possible) this could not in any way augment the value of any of the appointees as lawyers. The pettifogging lawyer, who, because of any political pull could command silk, would be a plain fool and would throwaway all chanGe of income by his profession.

• People don't employ lawyers becausethey are L.L.D's. or K.C's., but because of their knowledge of the law and their value as counsel. Anyone having a knowledge of the Law List and reading the names of new appointees will agree that the appointments are excellent. The regulations governing appointments of King's Counsel in New Zealand were gazetted in January, 1907, and the AttorneyGeneral then as now simply waited until the appointments were all in and forwarded them to the Chief Justice. The appointments can only be made by the Governor in Council, with the approval of the Chief of the Judiciary, so that the Isitt accusation is that Sir Eobert Stout has shown deliberate political bias. Perhaps, who knows, some disappointed lawyers who have been deemed unfit to wear silk are at the root of the Isitt protest. The intensely childish notion existing in New Zealand that State appointments of any kind should be distributed on an acreage plan should be fought tooth and nail. Mr Isitt and his querulous moans are so common as to be almost a recognisable national affliction. He always confines his thunders to destructive denunciations of nothing in particular and the only effect his fulminations have is to annoy the House and make the country wonder why Mr Isitt doesn't get work.