The Dominion. FRIDAY, MAY 12, 1911. JUDGES AND POLITICIANS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1125, 12 May 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, MAY 12, 1911. JUDGES AND POLITICIANS.

»- Our morning contemporary yesterday made a somewhat intemperate attack upon the member for Bruce on account of a reference which that gentleman made in his Hamilton speech to our Courts of Justice. It shocked the Government journal immeasurably that anyone should dare to "attack" our Courts of Justice. "For our part," it warmly added, "we believe the grossness of Mr. Allen's indictment destroys its possibilities for evil, and that the public, instead of taking seriously the allegations he makes in 'full confidence,' will resent this attempt to make the Bench the sport of wrangling politicians." Seeing that it professes to hold the view that Mr. Allen's "grossness" was quite sufficient to destroy any possibilities of evil in the speech, our contemporary's very heated comments appear somewhat superfluous. '.But what was the "gross" indictment? Vc quote in full from our contemporary's special report of Mr. Allen's speech:

Our Courts of law [said Mr. Allen! had not been kept as clean as they should have been. He made this statement in full confidence. It was a wrong thing for a young country lb in any way interfere with the administration of justice.- It was interfering with those dispensing justice if they wero offered emoluments which were nor tho emoluments of office. Our Judges and Magistrates shuuld bo Iree from such interference, but anVone who knew anything about it knew "that such interference had taken place and that those who had charge of affairs in New Zealand had not acted cleanly in respect to those administering the law.

This "gross" indictment then amounts to this: that the Government has interfered with those dispensing justice by. offering them emoluments which were riot the emoluments of office. This seems to us rather an attack on the Government than an attack on our Courts of Justice. However, the question that should really concern our contemporary as a faithful guardian of the public interest is not so much who is attacked as whether or not the statement made is a truthful one. It may prove a little unpalatable to the Government journal after its unqualified denunciation of Mr. Allen, based on its own distorted interpretation of what was said, to learn that the statement of the member for Bruce can be confirmed in five minutes by anyone who has the Parliamentary records at his disposal. A reference, for instance, to the appendices for 1909, G. 13, ■will disclose a return showing the amount paid to each member of the Native Land Commission. This return shows that the Chief Justice, Sin Kobeet Stout, received from the Government no less a stun tb.".;i £4019 13s. as President of the Native Land Commission."' The work of this Commission necessarily detache-l the Chief Justice from his Court duties, yet he was receiving his salary as Chief Justice—l2ooo a year—in the ordinary way for the same period that he received payment as President of the Native Land Commission. In other words, the Government croated a position which led to the Chief Justice receiving a material benefit at their hands amounting in all •to some £4000. Should any further elucidation of this unfortunate incident be required, it will bo found in Hansard. It is quite possible, of course, that our contemporary may not bold with the doctrine that a Judge should not accept reward or emolument from anyone. It may even scout the idea that a Judge of the Supreme Court should not be placed in a position to look for any further payment or reward than is provided by his salary. Yet if it is conceded that Judges may look for rewards by way of paid seats on Royal Commissions or anything else, a most dangerous principle is introduced. However, we are being led into the general question instead of merely showing our contemporary lhat Mr. Allen's reference to the matter is supported by official documentary proof. We have quoted chapter and verse to show_ that the class of interference mentioned by Me. Allen has taken place in regard to th' 3 Supreme Court Bench; and if proof is needed regarding the Magistrates' Court it can be seen on reference to 81, which also will be found in the Parliamentary Bluebooks. There it will be seen that Magistrates have been paid special sums (in addition to their regular salaries) for conducting commissions of inquiry. They also should be placed in a position which would make them independent of such favours. Me. Allen did not suggest that our Courts of Justice are corrupt or anything of the kind. He merely made a quite proper protest against a form of interference with the Courts by the Government, which is bad in principle and which contains possibilities not pleasant to contemplate.