JUDGES AND POLITICS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1150, 10 June 1911, Page 6

JUDGES AND POLITICS.

MR. FOWLDS'S BLUFF EXPOSED. GOING FEOM BAD TO WOE,Si;. Some of our contemporaries have laken the troublo to expose tho transparent nonsense talked by Mr. Fowlds, on tho question of payments 10. Judges, at the Liberal "rally" hero last Tuesday evening. We reprint the articles of the "Otago Daily Times" and Christchurch "Evening News" on the subjcct, as they incidentally bring out one or two new points bearing'on this very ' important question:— SIDE 'TRACKING. The Government, says the "Otago Daily Times", of the Bth inst., refuses to meet the real issue that has been raised by its employment of a Supreme Court Judge :is a member of a Koyal Commission upon terms of its payment to him of a substantial sum, exceeding .£"1000, for his services in that capacity while he was also drawing, in terms of the law, his full salary as a member of tho Bench, although an Acting-Judge was appointed for twelve months, to enable him to devote his whole attention during that period to tho work of the Commission. 11l its refusal to face this issue the Government shows at least its discretion. For the principle that Judges, whose salaries are settled by law so that they may bo put beyond the influence of any Government or political party, and that they may be removed beyond the possibility of suspicion on the part of the public that they are liable to be improperly influenced, shall not be provided with emoluments, in excess of their statutory allowances is simply not arguable. Mr. Fowlds, evidently recognising the impos-sibility-of refuting the contention that tho payment to tho Chief Justice of a large sum. over and above the salary which is attached to his judicial offioe was entirely wrong in principle, is. industriouslj* endeavouring to side-track the discussion. His reference to tho. matter at Wellington on Tuesday night suggests that ho has abandoned tho curious ground which he adopted on a former occasion when he implied that a special payment of ,£3OOO was too "paltry" to corrupt the Chief Justice. His present endeavour is to make light, of the whole mattor by asserting that a. similar appointment was made on a previous occasion with tho approval of two Governments, and that no accusation of impropriety was made then against either of tho Governments concerned. - It is to bo observed with satisfaction that ho acknowledges in this connection that it is tho Government, and not the Supreme Court Bench, that is involved in the mischief, because in another passage in his speech on Tuesday niglvt ho maladroitly insinuated that it was the Supreme Court 'Bench, and not the Government, that was being attacked over the appointment of tho Chief Justice as a Native Land Commissioner. Mr. Fowlds, however, now advances the exceedingly weak suggostiou that because Mr. Justice Johnston was appointed, without question, a member of the Statutes Eeprint Commission thirty years or so ago tho more recent appointment of Sir Bobort Stout as a Statutes Revision Commissioner and as a Native Lands Commissioner—in each case receiving a special salary in addition to'his salary as Chief Justice—should not be questioned. Tuo blacks mako one white, according to this view, which. is generally the last resort of the person who is driven into a corner over an argument through the absence of any merits on his side of the question. .As it happens, there is no complete parallel 'between, thecase of .Mr. . .Justice Johnson and that'of.'Sir Eobert Stout. 11l the former case Parliament was parliceps criminis:it was a party to a wrongful transaction. The'measure, which Sir Eobert (then Mr.) Stout introduced in the House of Eepresentatives in IS7B, providing for tho appointment of a Commission to revise the Statutes, provided also that one of the judges should bo a member of the Commission and that tho remuneration payable to the Commissioners should be fixed by the Goyornor-in-Coun-cil. Parlinment J 'acquTesced'' beforehand, therefore —doubtless upon an imperfect realisation of what its action really entailed—in tho adoption at that time of a wrongful procedure. It was not so in the case of the appointment of tho Commission, of which Sir Eol'ert Stout was a member, that moro recently revised the Statutes. It is significant that' the provision that a Judge should bo !a member of that Commission was deliberately omitted from the measure in terms of which the Commission was appointed. Parliament was not, therefore, in this case a party t'o a wrongful transaction. Nor was Parliament consulted with reference to the personnel of the Native Land Commission. In both cases t'ho responsibility for tho appointment of Sir Eobert Stout and—what is the important point—for the arrangement for the special payment of Sir Robert Stout rests entirely, on the Government. Mr. Fowlds, quito incapable, as it seems, of rising to a due appreciation of the valuo of the provision of the Act of Settlement that aimS at securing the 'independence of tho Judges, seeks to raise a cloud of dust by 'shabbily declaring that it was quite in keeping with the "sweating" inclinations of tho Opposition lo expect a Judge to render special service to the country "in his own time" and not be paid for it. Of the many foolish statements to which Mr. Fowlds has committed himself concerning the matter this is, perhaps, the most foolish. We are not quite clear what a Judge's "own time" 'is, unless it be the vacation' period that' is referred to, but the absurdity of this curious attempt on the part of the Minister for Education to showthat a relentless Opposition is bent on "sweating" a downtrodden Chief Justice will be realised by tho public when it knows that,, as we have previously pointed out, Mr. C. E. Button was specially apnointed, at' a cost of ,£l7-115 to the State, to "relieve Sir Eobert Stout of his judicial duties for a whole, year while tho Chief Justice, "in his own time," was performing his work as a member of the Native Land Commission—for which work he received JC3076; 'besides travelling allowances and expenses, in addition to his salary of .£2OOO a year a& Chief Justice!

Mr. Fowlds and the Supreme Court. The Hon. Geo. Fowlds is not very happy in his controversial . methods, remarks this Christchurch "News" of Juno 7. Findins inipo-siblo to offer any plansiblo defence of tho action of the Government in finding jobs for Judges ontsido their judicial duties, ho turns round and accuses the Opposition of a desire to "sweat" the occupants of the Supreme Court Bench by making them do extra work for nothing! This, of course,' is merely an impudent misstatement of fact, and. as far as wo can discover, no responsible 'member of the Opposition has ever said anything; to justify even Mr. Fowlds in 'drawing any such conclusion. The Opposition dees not desire to seo the Judges or anybody else sweated; it is merely' anxious that the independence of the Bench shall not be tampered with, and that tho. Judges shall not be encouraged to look to politicians like Mr. Fowlds "for commissions which may result in thousands of pounds of the taxpayers' money finding its way into their pockets. The Native Land Com■mission furnishes one of these examples, and as many people aro perhaps unaware what the Chief-Justice actually received for his services in connection with'it, wc give the following figures, which have been set out by Mr. F. M. B. Fisher, M.P.:— £ s.d. Honorarium 3070 jo 3 Travelling allowance 933 g 0 Travelling expenses 9 12 9 Total •• 4019 13 0 Plus his salary 2000 0 0 .£6019 13 0 Plus sum paid to Acting-Judge, Mr. Button, for doing Sir Robert Stout's work 1747 0 0 Grand total ,£7760 13 0 [The amount Sir R. Stout received was -£6019 13s. Tho total cost to tho country of Sir K. Stout's appointment was t C77GG 13s. J. Mr. Fowlds could folk for years without justifying this kind of thing, and flu pitiable weakness of his deience is revealed when he is reduced to charging tho Opposition with a desire to get work done for nothing. It is not a question of "sweating," but one of principle. No one subscribes more readily than members of the Opposition to the view that there ought to be sufficient judges, at. good salaries, for the ordinary judicial

duties arising nut of the administration of the law. Xor is there any particular objection to judges being appuintcd to commissions ii the circumstances require it, and if tliey are relieved of their ordinary duties. The objection is confined purely and simply to special payments which it is the power of the Government of tile day to make or withhold. To pay a judge thousands of pounds over and above his salary for the. performance ol work outside his judicial duties is equivalent to saying- that this work is more onerous and calls for the exercise of higher talents and abilities than the administralion of the law, yet that is a proposition which will not stand nnalysis for a moment. No judge would admit that he could do anything worthy of a higher pecuniary reward than lie does in the cour.se of his judicial duties. It is utterly wrong and indefensible, therefore, that there should be any discrimination, 'and that there should be any extra payments at all. Obviously the proper course, is that when, in the language of Mr. Fowlds, "tho highest judicial authority should be available" for other than judicial duties, a substitute judge should be provided to sit on the Bench in the place of the one chosen to act 011 a commission, and that the latter should continue to draw his ordinary salary. There would be no sweating about this arrangement; and what is more important, no loophole for adverse criticism. But somehow the present Government has a marvellous faculty for avoiding the straight and narrow way of political righteousness and propriety. If there is an opportunity for going wrong it never fails to take it, and then when put on its defence its only reply is a countercharge against its critics.