NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1140, 30 May 1911, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

We feel we really cannot ignore Dr. Findlay's speech in Whitfield's Tabernacle. There are three irresistible impulses to comment: first, the substance of the speech; second, the location of the pulpit, and third, the fact that this is the very first occasion, so far.as the cable agent has told us, upon which the AttorneyGeneral has been permitted, or has defiantly taken, an opportunity to unburden himself. We had something to say of the Tabernacle a while back. It is the church in which, on Sundays, the sermon is, or was at that time, a rabid political address, the speaker being any Socialist politician in the vicinity. Suit was brought to end tho exemption from rates enjoyed by the Tabernacle, which had become a Socialist hall pure and simple. It is not inappropriate that Dr. Findi.ay should have selected this place for his first lesson to poor old England. Certainly, tho quality of his sentiments made it a fit place for their utterance, although -wo can imagine that it is the first time Imperialism of any kind was preached there. If the Attorney-General were representing anybody but himself in Britain, we should be inclined to resent the tone of his speech. But he does not represent New Zealand, lie has not even the advantage of his chief, who, though ho has so far actually misrepresented New Zealand "opinion seriously, yet represents it nominally. Therefore, wc have no reason for objecting to Dn. Findlay's commiseration with the benighted Motherland that has so mucii to learn about Imperialism from this country. Perhaps he may bo right; the poor old Homeland has been so busy bringing us up, lending us money, and protecting us, that she could hardly have found time anyway to cultivate the higher life. Even if he believed this, however, tho average New Zcalandcr' would probably prefer to spare the feelings of Britain. However, everyone to his taste; and Dr. Findlay is entitled to his. He is entitled too, wo suppose, to his idea that "what was happening at the Premiers' Conference showed that New Zealand was anxious to make sacrifices for closer union." He will have a different idea when he comes back and finds that almost the whole of the newspapers of this country feel that what is happening at the Conference shows that New Zealand has been seriously misrepresented by her delegate.

A rather curious coincidence in connection with the Macdoxald case is worth recording. Tho public generally probably arc not aware that but for a clause slipped into the Judicature Act of last session the Supreme Court would have had no power to discharge the writ of attachment issued against Macdoxald. This clauso was not in the Bill when

introduced in the Legislative Council by Dii. Fixdlay ill October last, but was inserted by someone on the Statutes Revision Committee. The history of this Rill is a little out of the common. It was a short measure of two operative clauses when introduced, its main object being to overcome the difficulty, which arose in the Nodine case when Mr. Nodine refused to sign the lease, the subject of the dispute, and was sent to gaol for refusing to obey the order of the Court. Dr. Findi'ay explained that the clause was designed to empower the Court to authorise a' Court officer to sign in place of a party to an action who refused to obey the order of the Court, as in the Nodine ease. It was promptly pointed out that it was improper to pass legislation affecting proceedings then before the Court, and in consequence the Rill was referred to the Statutes Revision Committee. Then a very curious thing happened. The Rill came back with a new and very proper proviso excluding any litigation then before the Court from the provisions of what wc shall call flic Nodine section; but an entirely new clause had been added, as stated, extending the power of the Court in respect of writs of attachment. The reason given for adding this new clause was that it was desirable to bringthe lav.- of New Zealand into conformity with that of England. It is a little curious that this difference in the law should have existed for over 30 years without comment and that the discovery should then be made so opportunely for a member of the legislative body which deemed it advisable to make the change. It is also a rather strange coincidence that the first person to benefit under the change in the law should be a member of the Legislative Council which brought it about. But what strikes us as equally remarkable is that the Legislative Council should consider it necessary in the case of the Nodine clause to add a proviso excluding litigation then before the Court; whereas in Clause 4, the clause bearing on the Macdonald case, no such proviso was deemed necessary. Was this due to the secrecy with which the case had been shrouded? Anyway, the result of this omission was that the plaintiffs in the action commenced their suit knowing that they had power to enforce payment of any sum awarded them for a breach of trust by obtaining an order for the imprisonment oLthe defendant trustee. During the progress of the action, and just as the fruit of several years' litigation seemed to bo within their reach, and the Court had ordered payment of the misappropriated trust funds, the law was amended and the punitive provisions modified to their detriment—their strongest weapon was taken from them. Naturally the question will bo asked who prompted the amendment of the law last session which enabled the defendant Macdonald to escape 1 Without that amendment the Court would appear to have had no option in the matter—there was no alternative: either payment had to be made or imprisonment suffered under the writ of attachment.

The Chief Justice is, we understand, to' leave this week for the Cook Islands where he will inquire into the administration there and also preside at the murder trial arising out of the shooting of a native. So far as the intentions of the Government are known the inquiry into the charges made against the administration at> the Cook Islands is to be of an informal nature. Witnesses are not to be examined on oath and there will bo no official report of the proceedings—nothing, apparently, but the Judge's notes of the evidence. This is a most unsatisfactory state of things. The charges made are of a very serious nature and the witnesses called should at least be examined on oath. Moreover, if the Government avo really anxious to get at the true state of things—which their actions certainly do not encourage anyone to believe to be the case—they should afford protection to witnesses against proceedings for libel. Under the present arrangement it may be difficult to get witnesses to come forward to tell the whole truth for fear of becoming involved in actions which could not arise if the inquiry were conducted by a Eoyal Commission. We should think that tho Chief Justice would prefer that the proceedings should be fully reported and that witnesses should be given tho fullest liberty of speech relevant to the inquiry. Possibly thc_ Acting-Prime Minister has by this time arrived at some-definite conclusion on tho subject.

The newly-born National League appears to have boon somewhat embarrassed by a motion brought before it last evening relating to the paymerit by the Government of emoluments to members of the Judicial Bench over and above their statutory salaries. We arc rather at a loss to understand what the National League lias come into existence for if it is not to discuss and express an opinion on questions of such very general concern, and of such farreaching importance as that under review. There was not the least necessity for reflecting on anyone by connecting them directly with the motion; but the principle involved surely could have been affirmed without hurting the susceptibilities of even the legal gentlemen present. The idea which appeared to exist in the mind of one member of the league that a censorship should be exercised to prevent members being forced to deal with difficult and possibly delicate questions is somewhat amusing. This so-called national organisation rather gives the impression that it is not built on lines that give promise of deeds of derring-do.