THE CITY ELECTION.

Evening Star, Issue 3479, 17 April 1874, Page 2

THE CITY ELECTION.

To the Editor. Sir,—The friends of Mr Wales ate giving out that he is a teetotaler, to secure that of voters. This is surely a delusion, and the electors should be careful not to be caught by such a trap, Let Mr Wales say whether be will endeavor to secure an extension- of the franchise, so that a citizen like myself, paying 30s per week for his lodgings, and spending another 20s per week on other necessaries, should have a vote.—l am, &c., One Deprived of Franchise. Dunedin, April 17. To the Editor. Sir, —Your’correspondent signing himself “A Working Man” has, I think, made two misstatements in his letter - the one being' whore he declares himself a “ warm friend of Mr Barton,” and the other when ho signs himself “ A Working Man.” If he he the former he certainly takes the strangest way of showing his friendship for Mr Barton by asking the electors not to vote for him. And if he were what he signs himself “ A Working Man,” he would know his own class better than to think they would be gulled by his shallow sophistry into voting for either one or the other of the candidates. Perhaps if he really desires to influence his follow-workmen he will in his next effusion be good enough to sign his real name.—l am, &c., - Anti-Humbug. Dunedin, April 16.

To the Editor. Sib, —The present election for a member to represent Dunedin in the General Assembly possesses little or no interest for the electors, politically inasmuch as there is little likelihood of fresh legislation of importance being introduced during the time the present Parliament exists. But, municipally and socially, I think it is the most important which has occurred since Dunedin has been a City. In saying this I, of course, refer to the proposed legislation of the Water Company, in introducing a Bill to obtain further powers. This matter is of vital importance to the citizens, and in the present election the choice of the electors should fall upon the man most likely to effectually oppose the proposed Bill, whether it be through his power of speech, social standing, or knowledge of Parliamentary practice or tactics. First, let us consider which of the candidates has the best claims upon the citizens on account of previous utterances (when no election was in view) in antagonism to the arbitrary and excessive powers of the present Company. If my memory serves me rightly, some twelve months ago, when the Corporation was agitating this question, Mr Barton came voluntarily forward and made a powerful speech against the Company and in the cause of the citizens. Again, I remember the

Fame gentleman speaking most strongly the Company when defending Mr Fish against the tyrannical action brought by the Company against him. In vain I try to recall any such utterance made by Mr Wales, either publicly or privately. On the contrary, did not his answers to Mr Fish on the hustings show then that his sympathy was with the Company; and it was not until his proposer threatened, In consequence of these answers to withdraw his support from him, that Mr Wales became the champion of the citizens on the water question. I would wish the citizens to ask themselves if this does not look suspicious. Again, let them remember that Mr Rennie, one of the largest shareholders in, and until recently one of the directors of the company, was his seconder—another significant fast. But, sir, suppose the two men equally sinc*re OB' this question, let us ask ourselves which is the more likely to successfully

oppose the Bill in the House. Is it Mr Wales, who has no experience of public life whatever, no knowledge of Parliamentary practice or tactics, and whose business train* ing has been confined to an architect’s office; or is it Mr Barton, who has for the last twenty years been connected more or less with public affairs, has gained both in Vic* toria and New Zealand a knowledge of Par* liamentary practice and tactics, and whose very training as a lawyer will enable him more readily and successfully to raise ob-

stacles to the passing of the Bill 7 I sincerely trust that every elector who has the true interest ef the City at heart will, before vetask himself the above questions, aud then haying satisfactorily answered them, record- his vote for the man most likely to carry out his views on this all-important question.—l am, &c., _ Elector, Dunedin,/April 16. To the Editor, Sir, —I have read with considerable surprise the leader published in the * Evening Star’ of the 15th inst. Without commenting upon the taste displayed in publishing such an article immediately preceding an election at which one of the candidates is a

lawyer, and is moreover personally named in the article, I will venture to expose one or two fallacies contaiued in that pioductiou. The writer begins by stating that Mr Stephen, the present Attorney-General for the Colony of Victoria, had “ introduced a sweeping measure of radical reform of the procedure of the Supreme Court, and reducing it to the of that of the County Courts; thus simplifying and cheapening legal proceedings to a very great extent;” and goes on to say that this measure, although passed by the Assembly, was thrown out by the Council “by the influence, undoubtedly, of Mr Stephen’s profession—the lawyers,” Anyone who has been in Victoria will b© aware that the lawyers are not, as a body, to be found in the Council, but in the Assembly; and I am not aware that any lawyer now is a member of the Upper House. The charge, therefore, of disinclination to reform the law must rest, not with lawyers, but with the class of whom the Council is composed—the large landholders and their nominees, who are returned there under a special property qualification. In the second place, it is remarkable—to say the least—that Mr Barton should bo objected to as a lawyer, because Mr Stephen

proposed certain measures of reform of the law in Melbourne. What is the ground of the objection ? It must be either that Mr Stephen did not carry his schemes through, although he was a lawyer, or that Mr Bar* ton, being a lawyer, is bound on “Conservative ” principles not to reform the law. And here at once arises a nice question —Why should Mr Stephen, the present Attorney. General of Victoria and the son of a lawyer act in any way inimical to the very instincts of his profession ? I venture to say that in taking the course he has, Mr Stephen has acted upon the true instincts of his profession, and has endeavored to reform the law in a proper and legal way ; and we have the opinion of one of the brightest lawyers of modem times-1 mean Lord Brougham—to the effect that the law would never be really reformed until a man within the law arose to do it. I do not see why the qualifications essential to a good lawyer should ma t “ a bad legislator. I might point to ratable instances to the contrary—such as sglaen, Camden, Curran, and others—but

Will leave it to public opinion to decide whether a person whose business it is every day to interpret the laws, is not as likely a person to be able to frame them as one who probably never has any previous or further concern with them. . it is assumed, and in Jact stated, that the whole course of a lawyer’s education is to make him skilful in finding argumeats which may be made to tell in support &} ve ? v i® w any given osa, and that his business is not to find what is true or what is untrue, but to persuade others to adopt his view of the case. This is a very debased view to take of eur profession, and 1 venture to say that in Dunedin I know of no practitioner who would lend himself to the line of conduct indicated, or would enter .upon and carry any case on against his own convictions of right and wrong. It rarely happens that any case, civil or criminal, is contested iu a Court of Justice but that there |ia considerable doubt as to which party is in the wrong—in some cases so much so that every Court from the lowest even to the House of Lords will differ each from the other in its decision. In the next place, it said that lawyers are Conservatives—supporters of things as they a T e * Tbialdeny in toto. The whole course of English history shows that many judges and eminent lawyers have been the leaders of freedom and champions of reform. Who was it that broke down, once and for all, the system of arrest upon Secretary of State’s warrants? Chief Justice Pratt. Who intraduced into our present law the manifold

amendments in criminal jurisprudence? Lord Campbell. And, above all, who, at the time of the Revolution of 1688, becoming Chief Justice, declared and carried into effect the Bill of Rights, but Lord Somers ? Who was it that established the principle that by common law and of right there was a remedy for every wrong, and established that in opposition to the whole of the Court party, corporate bodies,' and the time-serving members of his own profession ? Chief Justice Holt. As lawyers it is true we are influenced By precedent, but only when the precedent is agreeable to law and common sense, the whole object of precedents being that the law may be certain, and suits settled quietly, without litigation in Courts. Never does a year pass in England but many ®f the so-called precedents are over-ruled or amended, so as to suit the current of modern opinions and better knowledge. It is therefore quite unjust to say that the lawyers are bound by precedent. We are bound to respect tbe decisions of the Courts only so far as they apply to the present times and the particularcircumstances of the case then in hand. I cannot say much in favor of the writer’s learning on the subject. Coke, C. J. I have heard of but I nev<r heard of a Chief Baron Cole. Does he intend to refer to the ancient monarch of that name ? And as to the code

Napoleon, the writer appears to be under the impression that the hmperor himself compiled it. If he only had the industry or forethought to consult history before perpetrating such an absurdity, he might have discovered that in point of fact ivapoleon had no more to do with the compilation of the code that goes by his name, than Justinian had with that under his name; and that all he had to do with the matter was to approve of a scheme prepared by the most eminent French lawyers of the day~another convincing proof that real law reform can only be effected by skilled hands. The writer of the article I have referred to ought to have some knowledge of Mr Barton’s previous course of action in the Parliament of Yiccoria, and if he had any such knowledge, it should have led him to think that there might be a Barton in Dunedin as good a reformer as a Stephen in Victoria, and quite as well able to legislate for this Colony as the last named gentleman is for his.

men who were in Victoria when Mr Barton was in the Assembly, will remember the Lien Bill which he introduced and passed through the Lower House, but which was rejected by the Upper House. They will also remember that it was he who suggested the reform of the County Court, by which all costs were required to be settled then and there by the Judge trying the case, which improvement in the law has been established in Victoria for the last twelve years, is now adopted in our Resident Magistrate’s Court bpre, and has been initiated generally throughout the Australasian Colonies. I myself remember well the straggle he made to effect an amalgamation of the professions of barristers and solicitors, and the ill-will to himself which he thereby caused, and which had the effect of compel!* lug him to leave the Colony, That struggle “ being continued in Victoria to the present day, and will, no doubt, ultimately be crowned with success. Can it, in the face of these facts, still be said that Mr Barton is a Conservative, and not fit to be a legislator?—lam, &c., _ Lex. Dunedin, April 17.