The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1887. HASTY CONDEMNATION.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1530, 12 April 1887, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1887. HASTY CONDEMNATION.

When people are m a hurry they are pretty nearly sure to make blunders, and if those of our contemporaries who have recently exhibited such eager haste to condemn Mr Ballance had only remembered this they might have avoided making themselves ridiculous. It will be recollected that m a recent address to his constituents the Minister for Lands referred to the public dissatisfaction that for want of some clear declaratory provision of law as to what evidence may or not bo admitted m certain cases, the Appeal Court, following the dim light of precedent, had felt itself bound to declare that Thomas Hall had been improperly convicted of muider, because certain evidence tendered and accepted was m their opinion not admissable. He went on to say that it was his opinion that our Supreme Court procedure was capable of reform, and to express his own belief of the desirableness of the appointment of a permanent Judicial Committee of both Houses of Parliament, whose business it would be to consider the bearing of important judgments, with a view to recommending such amendments m the statute law as m their opinion were required m view of such judgments or authoritative interpretations of the law at present existing. Not troubling themselves to consider that m the establishment of such a Judicial Committee. New Zealand would only be following the precedent of the United States, nor even to ascertain the real bearing of Mr Ballance's remarks, some Opposition journals m their haste to condemn, assumed that the Minister's desire was to constitute the Legislature m fact, as m theory, the Supreme Conrt of Judicature, and inveighed loudly and properly against so monstrous a proposal as that Parliament should sit m review of the judgments of the Judges. The " Press," for example, m its leading article of Monday la6t, wrote aB follows . — " Now, what does this mean ? Simply that when a decision of the Supreme Court does not meet with the approval of all sections of the community, it is to be brought nnder the review of Parliament. Who is to take the responsibility of affirming that a particular decision is not right to the pjublic mind. The Ministry of the day of course. They represent the majority of the representatives of the people, and theoretically the majority of the people themselves. This means that the administration, of justice is to be brought within the region of party politics. If Mr Ballanco's proposals were adopted it might come to this, that elections might be fought on the question of whether a particular decision of the Court was to be upheld or not. The mere contemplation of such a state of things is enough to make all justice-loving people stand aghast. It is the boast of all British communities that the administration of justice is beyond suspicion. The Courts are pure and independent. But that would no longer be the case if the decisions of judges and juries were subject to the review of a Committee of Parliament." Now all this is perfectly sound and sensible, always providing that any such proposal as was|assumed to have been mado had been made. But, a few hours later, our indignant contemporary discovered that it had " reckoned without its host," and that the basis of its diatribe was " unsubstantial as the fabric of a dreem." For, m this morning's issue, after quoting from the " Wanganui Herald's" extaiso report of what Mr Ballance really did say, it now admits that. " The latter part of his remarks, however is capable of another interpretation," and goeß on to say — " If the action of the Judicial Committee is to be confined to making suggestions to the Legislature as to necessary amendments of the law, then the proposal wears a different aspect. It may be of very little value, because the responsible Ministers of the Crown should be capable of exercising one of their principal functions — that of bringing forward amendments of the law — without the assistance of the proposed Committee. But it would not be open to the severe condemnation which the other interpretation of the proposal deserves. We sincerely hope for the credit of the colony that this last view of the case is the correct one." There is'nt the smallest doubt that it is the correct one, and we venture to suggest to our big brother of Christchurch and other Opposition organs that they would figure as more consistent champions of the integrity of our judicial system if they would themselves exility wjjen writing oft he other sjde &

little more judicial impartiality, |and would at anyrate abstain from the Jed burgh method of hanging first and trying afterwards to find, as m tho case of Mr Ballance, that the too hastily condemned offender was not guilty after all.