The Star. TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1981.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4132, 19 July 1881, Page 2

The Star. TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1981.

The trial of Whitelaw, for ill treating I a patient afc the Mount View ABylam, , ended somewhat unexpectedly in a • fiasco. It appears that, with all the [ perfection of administration to which Governments in this Oolony have at- : tamed, a slight capacity for blundering J still remains. Acts of Parliament are , solemnly passed by a Legislature which costs ihe people a considerable sum to bring into existence and to maintain; J being passed, they are confided to an [ executive machinery, also maintained at . a rather heavy expenditure, to carry out ; but it appeara that at least more . tban one of these codes of instruction to ' the Departments are never read -with the » eyes of comprehension, if indeed they l f are ever read at all. In the caeo of - Whitelaw, ifc transpired that the sceno 1 of his alleged crime had never been gazetted aa an asylum for the custody | and care of lunatics under the statute dealing with the subject; therefore, ; Whitelaw could not be oharged with i the offence of ill-treating a " patient " ? when the victim of his illegal cruelty ; could not legally be regarded as occupy- ; ing that position. Through this fatal i Departmental omission to discharge a • very ordinary ministerial duty, the positions of caretaker and helpless patient could not be recognised, and in that \ respeot at leaat Whitelaw has escaped ■ from justice. Ifc certainly would be \ interesting to know whether all , the rest of the Asylums throughI out Kew Zealand aro in the came legally unknown position; whether ' in fact in the eye of tbo law Buch an [ institution as an asylum for lunatics ; exists in this Oolony. If an important . institution like that of Mount Tiew, p eituated under the very nose of high I officialdom, is suffered to continue for years without the necessary pro- , clamafcion — fche only basis upon which i it can legally exist — being issued, what ' may nofc be expected regarding otber . institutions situated in remote parts of the Colony ? Then, another instance is afforded of failure to comply with the plain letter cf an Act of Parliament, in the non-appointment for Lyttelton of a certifying surveyor under the " Shipping and Seamen's Act, 1877." It may be remembered that in the beginning of May last, with the terrible story of the Tararua still fresh in the public mind, we referred to the important subject of deck loading on vessels belonging to the coasting trade — a practise wa were given to understand of very frequent occurrence — and we strongly questioned whether iv connection with this matter the letter of the law had been observed. We quoted the case of the steamer Grafton, which had been reported to us fis having left Lyttelton the previous day with a heavy deckloading of grain and butter, and wo asked whether, ia the case of thafc vessel, the necessary permit had been issued hy the certifying surveyor aa required by iaw. Very promptly we had a letter in reply from tho agents for the eteamer, informing us thut our information waa altogether wrong, and thafc the Grafton left Lyttelton under the authority of a permit iesned by Captain M'Lellan, tbo Harbour Master, who hu3 certified to her seaworthiness and fco her condition being in accordance with all that was required by Jaw. Tbe unfortunate parfc of the proceeding, however, turned out subsequently to be that tho position of Captain M'Lellan i himself, ao far as this matter is oon- ' cerned, whe nofc in accordance with law. ! An Captain M'Lellan bad never been gazetted a surveyor under " The Ship, ping and Seamen's Act, 1877," be had ] no locus standi, and the permit uuder ! which the Grafton sailed might for all legal purposes just as well have been i it sued by the far better known " man in i the moon." If tho Grafton, dr any ot.lii.-r f vets. liv her cin-nmstancoh, liad l»-ft the ! porfc of Ly ttt kon and mci >.iih diYunter, \ the firat revelation which would liave 1 fallc-n uader the notice of iho inevitable x Board of enquiry would Lave been the j. faot of the abbi-nce of a certifloato from y ur.y ]fg;il Piu-veyo:-, as rcquiud by the t Ami, uf I J iirhV,i!<'ut, pin-mit.tiup her to go *> to acu.. It in ehi,- to Oaptain M'LELLAN v to r,ay thai, hii v.-nc ;ji.kv>a by the jtfqvu-t- )[ ment having cim.rgi> of the a.d minis', rf.- t: ti r: of this particular Act- lo iefuo jyi- d rnitH as he has dont', auc! tuv re^p-ji^i- ! l bility ior tho nou-compliiiiice with lhe }) law, in the failure to gazette tho ap- <j

~~— — ~22SSI!SSS!!J?.!?^22.'* '"■'"' : ''*—<***<"-■<-,<>• appointment, doos aot ?.m upon bie Bhoulders. Wo rof.. r to theee two matters as raising tht question of compliance with the iottt-i- r.t tb, iaw in gaz»fcting generally. n iiW 0... other mstitutions are thero whioh Lnvo not been gazetted iv order to eecure for them legal recognitor.? How many uther porta aro ther.:- iv wbich no logally appointed ai-icyor is to be found P How many i '-Ker Acts of tho Legislature— besides v'.::i Lunatics Act and tho Skipping > iC ,'> .% a , , en >* are there in whioh tht ..xircmely simple but no less estrf-m.-Iy luc^sary ministerial requirements bay.? jaewr yf t beea attended to ? To be cacw in doubt is to be lost. Theee tyro coafc weft failures are auffioient to mak- ua ramble for the whole legal basis o* our adtninistra. tioa. Probably a B hn:wd lawyer, when Government comee into Court", has only to raise a-questioij directed to tbe baeia upon which tbe particul»r prosecuting Department rests to find the whole superstructure come tumbling down like a bouse bnilfc of cards. We would suggest thafc fcbe Government might do well to appoint yet one more Commission —to enquire whether anything connected with government in thieOolony baa really any legal existence !