MAGISTERIAL INDEPENDENCE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5655, 28 August 1896, Page 5 (Supplement)

MAGISTERIAL INDEPENDENCE.

A number of Opposition journals have within the past week or two been commenting upon the Lawliss correspondence which was laid before Parliament two months ago, and which we noticed at the time, expressing our opinion pretty freely as to the blame attaching to the various parties to the apparent interference with the course of justice. Some of our contemporaries find in the incident an argument in favour of making district judges and stipendiary magistrates independent of the Government of the day ; but from fresh light thrown on the subject by the Bey Jj. M. laitt that line of reasoning seems rather unfortunate. Mr Isitt was recently in Palmerston, where the licensing application of Lawliss was heard, and received information that satisfied him that the Stipendiary Magistrate did not deserve the blame thrown upon him by " the ordinary and prohibition Press " in the matter. Mr Stanford, he asserts, " refused the license in the first place, very properly resented Inspector Hume's dictation in the second place, and when the third ap • plication was made, only granted the license because the police had absolutely withdrawn all objection, and this withdrawal left him without legal basis for refusal." "We, of course, accept the statement as to Mr Stanford having resented the pressure put upon him, but it i 8 to be regretted that hia protest does not appear in the correspondence laid before Parliament. Would it not have been Mr Stanford's best course to have written to Colonel Hume, informing him that his inter* ference was unwarranted? Then we do not — though only an " ordinary " journal — consider that the fact of Mr Stanford having resented the pressure exonerates him from all blame. The character of Lawlies had been made known to him, and it was neither better nor worse when the application came before the Court the second time than it was on the first occasion. The mere withdrawal ] of opposition by the police ought not :,to have influenced the Magistrate's opinion of the unfitness of Lawliss to hold an hotel license. The facts that Mr Stanford took some means of showing his resentment at Colonel Hume's action, and that he granted the license certificate to Lawliss on his own responsibility and uninfluenced by pressure, go to show that there is no need to specially provide for the independence of the Magisterial Bench. The Opposition papers show .a remarkable unanimity in blaming the Government alone for the attempt to influence Mr Stanford. They ignore the fact that it was the Leader of tho Opposition who was the first to set things going by importuning the Minister of Defence to

use his influence on behalf of Lawliss. That fact has never been denied, and, to be consistent, the Opposition journals should inveigh not only against Ministerial interference, but also against the Hon Captain Eussell's undue anxiety to serve one of his constituents. We see no reason to alter our formerly expressed opinion that the incident was a regrettable one all round and the only one who shines in it is the exconstable Lawliss, whose gift of political wire-pulling must be of no common order. Perhaps Colonel Hume conies out of the affair with least lustre, for it is no part of hia duty to write to magistrates suggesting what course they should take, and he had no reason to complain of fear of Ministerial wrath, as his position is one of independence under the Civil Service Act. The " moral " of the sorry business, so far as independence is concerned, is that the country must insist upon the quality being inherent in its public servants ; it is vain to hope that it can be conferred by Act of Parliament.