THE JUDICIAL BENCH.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1140, 30 May 1911, Page 5

THE JUDICIAL BENCH.

fr. COMMISSIONS AND EMOLUMENTS. DISCUSSION BY THE NATIONAL LEAGUE. At the meeting of the "Wellington branch of the National League last evening, Mr.'P. R. Waddy moved:— ■ That this branch, being desirous of maintaining the probity of the Judicial Bench of New Zealand, and resenting any attempt at political interference with its members, is opposed to tho pfactico of granting to Supreme Court Judges commissions, coupled with emoluments, over and above their statutory salaries. Mr. 51. Luckie opposed tho introduction of tho motion on the ground that it did not lie within the province of the league to discuss a matter of the kind mentioned. The chairman, Mr. H. P. Rawson, ruled that the motion was admissible.

In a speech supporting his motion, Mr. Waddy contrasted tho practice of Judges entrusted with special employment in England and Australia with the paid employment of Judges on commipsions in New Zealand. Ho said it would be a monstrous thing if a Judge were allowed to accept work and receive remuneration from private individuals or corporations in this country, arid it was equally wrong that a Judge should receive special remuneration from a Government that was often in Court as a litigant.

Mr. W. H. D. Bell objected to any reflection being cast upon a Judge or Judges of the Supreme Court. It might bo that the practice of putting Judges on commissions and paying them for the work was liable to raise a suspicion in the public mind that' the Judges would be influenced in favour of the Government. If this were the opinion of the meeting, it would be right to 6ay so. but it would bo wrong to say so in terms' of Mr. Wadrly's resolution. As it stood, the resolution would amount practically to an accusation against the Chief Justice by the members of the league. The resolution should ho withdrawn. If the league desired-to affirm-that Judges-should pot, bo paid for special services, the resolution should be carefully worded so as to cast no reflections upon any Judge. In view of .what had lately appeared in the papers care should°b« taken to state that no reflection on tho Judges was intended. In Mr. Waddy's motion this hud not been done.

Mr. J. E. Fitzgerald thonjtlit Mr. Waddy should recognise that this instihition, in Us swaddling clothes, did not want to "bump against the judicial bench." No doubt Members differed on this question among themselves. . .

Mr. Hadfield honed the motion would bo •withdrawn. The matter should be brought np in Parliament in such a way that, tho Chief Justice could renly. Mr. Hadfield further objected to the motion on tho ground that it did not deal with any particular legislation but with an administrativa act.

Mr. J. Fuller, jnn., hoped the League ■would tako tho introduction of this motion as a lesson. Ho thought that in future motions should be discussed only after they had been approved by an executive committee.

Mr. i'ihgibbpn 6poko in favour of a full and free discussion upon all motions. He. did not approve of the motion before the meeting, but would approve a general motion stating that tho members of the judicial bench should be independent of any place or profit in tho gift of the party in power for tho time being. As a member of the Bar, and he was sure ho could speak for Messrs. Bell and Hadfield, ho did not believe for a moment that Sir Robert Stout had been influenced in any way. . After some further discussion, the molion . was withdrawn.

Mr. Waddy also withdrew the following resolution:—

That this branch desires to record its emphatic protest against the trial of Supreme Court issues in camera, as such a system tends to a class discrimination, and is not in the best interests of justice.