The Waipawa Mail SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1878.

Waipawa Mail, Volume I, Issue 19, 16 November 1878, Page 2

The Waipawa Mail SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1878.

It is to be feared that the country has r not yet heard the last of Mr Bieton’s quarrel with two of the Judges of the . Supreme Court. It was Sydney Smith, we believe, who remarked that no reform would be brought about for the safety of passengers by railway in England until a bishop was killed. The immense power vested in the Judges for committal for contempt of Court was allowed to go unquestioned in New Zealand till an obnoxious lawyer was sent to gaol for a month. Ordinary laymen have been consigned to prison for even longer periods, and f public opinion has been silent. One ■ man’s liberty is of as much consequence as another’s, but we venture to say that a dozen litigants or witnesses who offended against the dignity of , the Bench might have been consigned ; to Her Majesty’s Gaol, and neither outside sympathy would have been shown nor legislative action invoked. Mr Bartoy, however, is not only a lawyer of considerable standing in his profession, but possesses combativeness to an unlimited extent. The persistency with which he badgered the J udges resulted in his committal, and the same persistency in demanding redress when released has made him and his grievance known over the length and breadth of New Zealand. Leaving the merits of Mr Barton’s particular ease aside, we notice that many of our contemporaries express themselves shocked that Judges should possess the power, without trial, of committing a man to prison during the term of his natural life, without the possibility of the intervention of the prerogative of pardon. It appears that if a person is sent to prison for an indefinite time for contempt of Court, there is no power in the country to release him, except the mandate of the Judges themselves. This is certainly a vast power to vest in the hands of any part. However, it is safer to judge by realities than possibilities. There has been no single case where a man has been deprived of liberty in this colony for any lengthened period for having offended their Honors the Queen’s Judges. If the Court was to stretch its power to the utmost, it may safely be relied on that effectual means would be found to have the prisoner set free. Public opinion is all-potent in New Zealand, and the Judge who would outrage it by keeping a man in prison for an offence against the Court itself,-would find himself relieved from his judicial duties. The arbitrary power may be a relic of past tyranny, but it is a relic worth preserving. If our Courts are to be pure, respect must be paid to the Bench, and the Bench must have the power to punish for any disrespect shown it. The Judges of the Supreme Court here possess neither more nor less power in enforcing decorum than is possessed by the higher Courts in England. In the democratic, above all other systems, a strict respect for the law and its dispensers is essentially necessary in the interest of public justice. In the Courts of Law in the United States greater latitude is allowed the bar and litigants than would be permitted under the English judicial system. The Courts in America are notoriously corrupt. This may not be the result of the loose way in which the law is administered in the States, but there is little doubt that the Courts would be more pure if a class of men were put on the Bench who would enforce respect for the administration of the law. It is not a question at all of the 1 personal dignity of the gentlemen on < the Bench. It is one of reverence < for the noblest institution in the land. 1 In connexion with this matter, a 1 leading paper in the South Island at- ! tempts to disparage the character of the J udges of the Supreme Court inthi s 1 colony. The Otago Daily Times of are- \ cent date contains the following: “Any 1 one who has taken cognisance of the t causes that lie at the foundation of i three-fourths of the appointments to 6 seats on the Bench in the colonies, 1 must feel that there is no guarantee whatever either as to the ability, judi- '■ cial fairness, or character of Judges j appointed to positions in the Supreme j Courts of these colonies. Briefless bar- ; risters, political fags, or bitter oppo- \ nents of the Ministry of the day, have f the doors to the Bench opened to them, a and by a stroke of a Minister’s pen a I barrister may be placed in a position a to snub or summarily punish a rival, c being invested with attributes by which all men are at once to be held r , in awe. We say nothing regarding k the personal or professional oharacter I

of the gentlemen who now occupies the highest position in the Supreme Court of this colony ; but everyone knows that his appointment to the Attorney - Generalship, with a reversionary interest in the Chief Justiceship, was simply the result of a political bargain on the part of the then Government; and, whatever may be the merits in the particular case, there is no honest man who can doubt that the principles which guide judicial appointments in this colony are not such as to afford any guarantee as to the appointed being possessed of such qualities as fit him for the proper exercise of those vast powers which appear to vest in the Supreme Court Judges.” The only appointment to the Bench of the Supreme Court in this colony which was open to the suspicion of political reasons was the elevation of Mr Justice Gillies. He was a dangerous opponent of the Vogel Ministry, and it was said he received the Judgeship with the object of removing him from the Parliamentary arena. But it must be admitted that Judge Gillies is fitted for the position he occupies both by ability and personal character. No matter what were the reasons which influenced the Ministry to make the appointment, it is exceedingly doubtful if a better man could have been picked from amongst the legal profession in the colony As for Chief Justice Prendergast, he never at any time interfered in politics. He was appointed Attorney-General by the Stafford Government, and was made Chief Justice by the Ministry which ousted Mr Stafford, These two facts taken together, will in a large degree show that political partisanship had nothing to do with the appointment of the Chief Justice. As for Mr Justice Richmond, there is not an abler nor more impartial Judge south of the Line. He held a leading position in the Government of the country prior to his receiving the Judgeship. At the time of the appointment it was not even whispered that he was unfitted for the position. Rumor has never connected Mr Justice Johnson and Mr Justice Williams with political influences. The worst aspect of this question of Mr Barton’s is that it has led to an attempt to lower the character of the Bench, thereby sapping all respect for the law. However, we venture to say that nothing will come out of all the agitation on the subject, though it may be kept on the surface for a time, and that Mr Barton and his imaginary grievances will be allowed to drop into oblivion.