New Zealand Times. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1875.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4333, 8 February 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1875.

There is, in a certain town of New Zealand, what may be styled a professional “ring,” whoso general comfort, mental tranquillity, and professional prospects the honest carrying out by the Executive, of the recommendation of the. Ward-Chapman' committee, has rudely disturbed. This “ring” and its member’s are “worried.” Wo do not by any means wonder thereat. Considering' the blissful state, of sunshine in which previously they basked, and the dreary clouds which now overcast their sky, we can sympathise with them—we really can. The Gods smiled benignly upon these gentlemen; men envied them and sought, hay, were even willing, to give good current coin for their sweet persuasive intercession with the Gods. Oh, what a change is hero ! But a short while ago their word could stand against the world, and now they are “worried.” Alas,, the mutability of mundane things and human prospects ! We sympathise with these gentlemen, and we admire their pluck too. They clearly mean to die game. Autbmus Ward, in one of his peregrinations, was crossing the prairies, when he was met by a certain company of noble savages, who very speedily relieved him of the incumbrance of all the unconsidercd trifles on or about his person, put their mark in various shapes and forms on his said person, and by way of keepsake in the meantime took his scalp with them,

telling him that they should meet hereafter in the happy hunting grounds!, “ Well, if wo do,” said Artemus, “there “ will he a light.” Possibly, Artemus by this time has been as good as his word; who knows? But our “ring” beat Artemus hollow ; they show fight at once, and for this reason we admire their pluck. But we do not admire the cause in which the pluck is displayed. It is every day becoming plainer that there is going on all over the colony a system of wire-pulling, of which the purpose is to got up a, cry and a sentiment of grievance against the Government, ostensibly on behalf of the Judges, but really in favor of the “ring,” whose little game is in the fair way of being spoiled. Unluckily there are certain

journals mean enough to do the dirty work of any clique, to play at any time “ Pity the sorrows of a poor old man,” or “Kissing goes by favor,” or any other .tune, when the sixpence is pitched to them. The public shall not be charmed, if wo can help it, into dancing to the false music of these literary organgrinders. An evening contemporary, a few days ago, attempted to entertain the public with a tune of this description. There was as usual a very considerable number of false notes in the music, and these we now propose to point out. There is a little slip in the very first line of this notable composition likely enough to lead, under given circumstances, to serious consequential errors. But as it is, though palpably absurd, in all probability a clerical error, and as we are under no need of adopting the contemptible “small “ sneer” style of criticism of some journalists, we pass it over. In the first place wo are told that it was declared in the Act of Settlement that “ the Judges should be only removeable “ on the address of both Houses of Parliament,” and again:—“ It is true that “ the Judges here [in N.Z.] can only be

“ removed from office on the joint address

“of the two Houses,” &c. This is not true either in England or in this colony, or we may add in any colony where the Judges hold office “ during their good

“ behaviour.” Here are the words of the clause in the Act of Settlement:— ‘ ‘ Judges’ commissions shall be made “ quam elite se hene gesserint; but upon

“ the address of both Houses of Parliament it may be lawful to re- “ move them.” Where is the “only?” Our colonial Acts place the Judge’s commissions on the same tenure of quam diu se hene gesserint , and the Act of 1862, No. 12, section 4, has this provision : “ It shall be lawful for her Majesty upon “ the address of both Houses of the “ General Assembly, to remove any Judge “ of the Supreme Court from his office, “ and to revoke his patent or commission: “ And for the Governor to suspend any “such Judge upon a like address.” Again, where is the “only?” The fact is, that both in England and here this provision for removal upon address of Parliament is cumulative. The grantee of an office held on the condition of “ good behaviour ” can be removed by the grantor, upon the breach of the condition of the tenure. The effect of such a gi’ant is the creation of an estate for life in the office defeasible on the breach of tho condition annexed to tho grant. The Crown, therefore, can, quite independent of the address of Parliament, remove a Judge, like any other officer holding on like tenure, on the occurrence of his misbehaviour. Possibly this may be a new point to the scribe of our evening friend. We are then told that the recent redistribution of judicial districts is a most unjustifiable proceeding, that tho exorcise of such a power by Government is highly injurious to the independence of the Judges and the liberty of the people, and that it is a nice point whether the power legally exists, and if so, “then the law “ should be altered at tho earliest pos- “ sible opportunity.” Precisely so ; this last is the real object to which the “ring” and their clacquers are working up, and in order to reach which they are in the interval working hard to create a sentiment by ringing the changes on the “independence of tho Judges,” and “ tho liberty of tho people.” There can, we apprehend, be no doubt that tho Supreme Court Act, 1860, No. 17, sections 14, 15, and 17, gives full discretion in this respect to the “Governor in Coun- “ cil,” that is, in effect, to the Ministry. This is, without doubt, with one “ring” a very sore point; and they are, as we said, malting, and will certainly continue to make, strenuous efforts to extinguish rhis power so uncomfortable to their feelings. Our contemporary, referring to the action of tho Ministry in effectuating tho suggestion of tho Waivd-Chapman Committee, goes on: —“But we may point “ out that one branch of the Legislature “ has no more power or right to tamper “ with tho independence of tho Judges u than the Government have.” Here again the learned scribe is sadly at fault. The English Parliament, besides its func- 1 tion as a legislature, is a council of superintendence in matters of State. Mithcr f House has the right to inquire into every part of the Executive Government, and ; tho consequent right of criticism and ad- 3

vice. Concerning the declaration of war and peace, concerning the appointment or the diamission of the servants of the Crown, concerning the conduct of such servants in the discharge of their official duties, concerning the bestowal of marks of royal favor, concerning all matters relating to trade ; in a word, concerning every subject of public interest either House may, at any time, tender its advice to the Crown. This extension of political superintendence has never been called in question in England since 1784, an era which fixed so many constitutional doctrines. (See 24 Pari. Hist., 267, 552, 567.) By the New Zealand Parliamentary Privileges Act, 1865, all the “ privileges, “immunities, and powers,” which at the time of the passing of the said Act were exercised by the House of Commons, whether such, powers were held and exercised “by custom, statute, or other- “ wise,” were conferred on both our Chambers. And, of course, among these powers is this most efficient and necessary one of political supervision and advice. It will now be perceived that the House of Representatives in adopting, and the Executive in effectuating, the suggestion of the Committee, simply exercised a power which the law gave them. But our contemporary also conveniently forgets or leaves out of sight that this same Ward-Chapman Committee was a joint committee of the two Houses. Now, either the writer honestly wrote about a most serious public matter of which ho was grossly ignorant, or he knowingly misrepresented a matter which he understood; or, again, he was the unconscious and inspired penman of interested parties who made him their tool for the nonce If the first supposition be the true one it is pitiable ; if' the second be t’-up, the scribe is dishonest and disingenuous and if the third be the true case, he is dishonestandcontemptible. If anything were at all wanting to the many proofs of the overpowering expediency of this change of judicial districts, it is furnished by the determined and persevering efforts made through the Press, by interested parties, to get up a cry against it. We are told that some of the Judges, rather than proceed to the new spheres of duty, will resign. Could more demonstrative proof be given that these gentlemen have become so intimately entangled in local interests and associations as to bo unfit to hold their present position with honor to themselves and profit to the country 1 Could anything more conclusively prove the danger of the existing system ? We cannot here go into the details of proof of the doctrines hero maintained, but so soon as they are questioned by persons whose opinion is worth notice the proofs will be forthcoming.