THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, MAY 11, 1882. TITOKOWARU AND RANGI.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2524, 11 May 1882, Page 3

THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, MAY 11, 1882. TITOKOWARU AND RANGI.

Judge Gillies appears to be surprised that the Government have ordered a nolle prosequi to be entered in the case of the West Coast Native prisoners, Titokawaru and Rangi. With the larger portion of the public, however, the feeling of astonishment is felt, not with regard to the action of the Government, but with regard to the attitude assumed by the learned Judge. It is difficult to see what other course was open to the Executive. Judge Gillies had laid down the law so strongly to the jury that, as our Wellington correspondent pointed out, it would have been a positive scandal for the jury to have returned a verdict of guilty in direct opposition to the Judge's distinctly announced opinion, while an acquittal might have had a bad effect. In point of fact, the injudicious action of the Judge had placed the Government on the horns of a dilemma, and they chose to make the best of the situation and leave the onus where it should properly lie, namely, on the shoulders of the Judge himself.

Judge Gillies did not quession that the prisoners committed acts which laid them under the power of the West Coast Settlement Act for, he said that although they were sitting still at the time of their arrest, this would amount to an obstruction, if the parties were told by a properly appointed person to get away and refused to do so. But the only person to give that authority was the Governor. It would not, therefore, be sufficient for some Minister to give the authority. It must proceed from the Governor authorising some special person to do some special act. So far as he could see, proceeded his Honor, no such authority had been given by the Governor to a special person to forcibly remove or disperse certain Natives. Now there appear to be two interpretations of the meaning of the Judge. The one opens up a wide constitutional question, the other would refer to a matter of detail. With, regard to the constitutional question it was held that the Judge consideredthat, by the terms of the Act, the want of an authorization direct from his Excellency to some person or persons to arrest the Natives invalidated the whole proceedings. But, it has been argued, what functions can the Governor have in colonial administration separate from and exercisable independent of his Ministers ? The Acts of the Ministry are held to have the approval of the Governor, and vice versa, unless there is direct evidence to prove the contrary, and the result of a breach of the confidence which should exist between Ministers and the Crown would manifest itself, most probably, in the resignation of the Ministry. Does then Judge Gillies hold that the application of the West Coast Settlement Act rested entirely with the Governor ? The aßsent of the Crown had been given to the Act, and, if its application lay entirely with the Governor, a very anomalous state of affairs would have ensued. If the power of the Ministry is to be so sharply separatod from that of the Crown, much inconvenience, to say the least of it, would frequently ensue. The Governor can constitutionally only act on the advice of his Ministers, and he acts through the Minister of the Department when action is necessary.

But the other hypothesis with regard to the meaning of the Judge is more likely to be the true one, and it would seem not to be necessary to assume that he wished to question the power of the Ministry to give the authorization. By this hypothesis Judge Gillies did not wish to question the fact that the Governor can have no functions in colonial administration independent of liis Ministers, hat what he tried to impress upon the Grand Jury was that mere personal or verbal instructions from a Minister were not sufficient authority for any person to take into custody another who might be acting in contravention to the provisions of the Act. His Honor, we are told, in reality contended •" that no person can legally do or perform any act or thing in pursuance of the "West Coast Settlement Act, or for the purpose of carrying out the provisions thereof, without they are properly authorised in writing and gazetted in the usual way." This view, of course, puts the question on an entirely new, but a much narrower, basis. It may be as well to quote the clauses in the Act so that our readers .may judge for themselves as to the reasonableness of Judge Gillies' rendering. Clause 6 says : —" For the purpose •of carrying this Act into effect, the Governor may issue such orders as to him shall seem necessary and fit to preserve the public peace; and any person who shall be guilty of any of the offences following, within the confiscated territory, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall ho liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for any time not exceeding two years, and be hound over to keep the ..peace for sach further time as the Court shall think fit, that is to say" (then follows a description of the offences). Clanse 7 says:— *' Every such person who commits or who ehall he found committing any one of the above' mentioned offences may be arrested by any one of the Armed Constabulary without warrant, but shall he taken as soon as conveniently may be before a Justice of the Peace and charged with the offence." Now the general intention of the Act appears to bo plain enough, and the point which the hypothesis we are now treating of makes the Judge to urge, is not prominently brought out in the wording of the measure. It is possible that Judge Gillies may bo right in what appears to ns to be a very minor point, but it may well be held that ho should hp.ve taken a broad view of the law, and loft it to the •counsel on either side to argue oat the niceties. The point as to the proper authorisation of the arresting party might have furnished an argument, and possibly a convincing ono, for the couns&l for the defence; but wo fail to see that a Judge, taking, as ho should do, a broad view of the intention of the Legislature, should havo mooted the question in his charge to the jury.

Makdevlllb and Hakcjioba.—A meeting of the Board of Conservators, Mandeville and Bangiora drainage district, was held at Bangiora on Tuesday. The ohaizmnn and all the members were present, and tenders were opened for carting shingle from spits and raising the banks of main drain, and also for various small works, such as grubbing willows, & 3 up the main drniu. The lowest in each ces'e was acoepted. The surveyor was instructed, in Oise of any surplus stuff from W. Lynsliey's contract, to pluoo it as a continuation of embankment on the south side of main drain. After transacting other routine bmatll tbe Board adjourned,