The Feilding Star. TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1891. "A Bellicose Judge"

Feilding Star, Volume XII, Issue 137, 12 May 1891, Page 2

The Feilding Star. TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1891. "A Bellicose Judge"

It is one bf the blessings of Hviug under British rule that the Judges entrusted with the administration of the laws and the infliction of penalises are generally cool-headed men who know their great porters, and execute them with moderation and discretion. Utterances from the Judicial Bench, on all subjects con nected with or bearing on crime and criminals, or on other matters affecting the civil welfare of the community at large, may ordiuai-ily be accepted with the respect due to them from the recognised high authority of the speakers. There are, however, exceptions to this as well as all other rules, and the following is a moat glaring one. We were told by a telegram on Saturday, received from Brisbane, that "in the Supreme Court while a witness in the conspiracy case was describing the manner in which the Unionists met free laborers at Clermont and how the police declined to act without orders, Judge Harding remarked : 'As the police were, all armed with sixshooters there would not have been many who would have ' boo hoohed ' a second time if I had been one of the police. It is monstrous to consider how any free nation is to exist when such things are considered justifiable and allowable.' His Honor condemned the conduct of the police in nut making arrests." Here we have a judge censuring the police because they declined to kill their fellow men without orders. His Honor goes further, and by implication hints that had he been hooted he would have used a "six-shooter" and done a little wounding and killing on his own account. This. judge, had he stopped to think, would surely have refrained from giving vent to such childish folly. Suiely he ought to have known that his words, telegraphed far and wide, over the land, might doevil work, for by such a principle, laid down by one whom the people respected from the position he occupied, the vary crimes would be incited which it is the duty of a judge to punish instead of encouraging. Judge Harding had evidently not before him the splendid examples given by Commissioners Kyunersley and FitzGerald, duriug the threatened troubles on the West Coast of the Middle Island, in this colony, over twenty years ago, which arose out of the Feiaaa riots at Home and the attempted assassination of the Duke of Edinburgh in Australia. These two men, by their cool courage aud prompt arrest of all offenders agaiust the law, averted a far more serious calamity aud -loodshed but tlmy never talked theatrical rubbish about "using six-shooters." Their duty was to prevent bloodshed — and they did so. Another good example was given in New Zealand at Parihaku, by the Hon. John Bryce, who, when he sent men to arrest Te Whiti and his men, did not allow the police and volunteers, who composed tue party, even to carry side arms. The Hon. Johu Bryce cou&idered it his duty to prevent bloodshed — and he did so. We may say that these three men all knew war, and had seen men slaiu, aud therefore their whole souls were in arms against mere killing for the sake of killing. We question if Judge Hardiug has the feeblest notion of the consequences of a t'usilade, even by "six-shooters,' of which he has such a high opinion, as peace makers. We do hope that the better sense of the men now opposed to the law in Brisbane will teach them the folly of their ways, and that the greater folly of the judge, whu tried some of their fellows, will turn these riots into ridicule.