The Evening Star MONDAY, MARCH 21, 1870.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2144, 21 March 1870, Page 2

The Evening Star MONDAY, MARCH 21, 1870.

We have been charged with taking an erroneous view of the position in which the Magistrates at Port Chalmers were placed in the recent prosecution of the Police. Our position is that, whether heard at Port Chalmers or elsewhere, it would have been much better that two gentlemen, holding elective positions, should have remitted to others the task of trying a case in which their constituents were to a certain extent the prosecutors; for, from the feeling displayed againgt the Police, we consider that the nominal prosecutor was only a tool in the hands of a party. It is said in reply that it would have been shrinking from duty to have asked another magistrate to investigate the case. This we consider a mistake. The duty of a magistrate is not only to administer justice, but to administer it in such a way that it shall be manifest to all that it is justice ; and if there be any impediment in the way that does not attach to another magistrate, that tends even remotely to render the decision cpxestionable, the ends of justice arc better served by inviting him to conduct the enquiry. The mistake with regard to duty arises from come before the magisterial tribunal, from the special one under consideration. Had it been an ordinary case of assault, although it is conceivable there could be one which it would not be prudent to deal with, as a rule, no magistrate would think it necessary to decline to hear it. But a charge against the police is at no time an ordinary affair ; and in this instance, it was accompanied by so many circumstances of suspicion as to the motives for the prosecution, that it was doubly necessary to be cautious. Of course, feeling in such matters can only be gathered outside the Court. The rules of evidence do not allow travelling beyond the case itself, and it woidd have been very difficult to have produced Waterman So-and-so, who had a down upon the police because they took from him a case of smuggled brandy or gin ; or Messrs Peppercorn, who had some cigars or tobacco intercepted in their passage to their stores. These little things do happen in sea-ports ; and, unfortunately, the most reliable and trustworthy officers are the most likely to incur popular dislike, because of their not winking at trifles of that sort. O course, the Bench themselves are abovep such things; but then, where Mayor and Representative have to be elected, they are chosen by electors of whom Waterman So-and-so and Messrs Peppercorn form a part. It is a ery spirited, very correct, and very courageous to say, “ If wc are not to Vic trusted to “ make this enquiry wc are not worthy “ to bold office as magistrates,” but we are quite prepared to .say it is not very prudent. Granted that the magistrates of Port Chalmers took the utmost pains faithfully to fulfil the duty they undertook, it would have been much more dignified, and the ends of justice would have been more fully answered, had they at once said, “ As there is a pos- “ sibility, as the people who elected “ us and the police arc in antagonism, “ that our motives may be questioned “ should wo decide against the police, “ this enquiry, which affects their efficiency, had better be conducted by “ one or more magistrates who have no “ interest in the district.” It would not have been an acknowledgment of incompetence, for the clear perception of the possible cen,seriousness of opponents is sufficient to refute that idea ; it would not have been a shrinking from duty, because it was not absolutely necessary that the case should have been tried there; but it would have been an admission that there were circumstances- that were peculiar iu the

case, and under them a refusal to be the judges would have been delicate, and rightly appreciated. There is more in it than a mere investigation of fact, for it is a question that involves the protection of life and property : it is one that ties the hands of policemen, and dictates to them what they shall not do in the performance ol their duty. The police themselves, though On their trial, were not nearly so likely to have their motives misinterpreted as the magistrates who tried them. The prosecutor was a perfect stranger, so that there could be no personal animosity. Whatever they did was from a desire to maintain order; yet they arc charged outside with officiousness, although there was a clear oltence against public morality that justified their interference. If then they are thus condemned by many who ought to know better, are the magistrates likely to fare better under a remote presumption that as men they may, unconsciously to themselves, view the case through popular spectacles '? Of course, we have too high an opinion of the Bench to entertain that idea ; but the magistracy themselves should have such a sensitiveness regarding its purity as to place its decisions above suspicion.