PRESS WARNINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4462, 8 July 1875, Page 3

PRESS WARNINGS.

The Brisbane Courier (says the Melbourne Argus, of June 2) has received what the French newspapers would call “ a first warning” from the Attorney-General of Queensland, for the publication of an article “ commenting upon a suit lately instituted by him in the Supreme Courtand that gentleman, who appears to be a youthful lawyer and a youthful politician, reminds the publisher of the Courier that the Courts have very extensive and summary powers to prevent and punish for such comments as are calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice by biassing the minds of Judges and jurors. But when we turn to the obnoxious article, which apeared in that journal on the_22nd nit., we find that it merely condemns the institution of certain suits in equity to settle disputes arising out of conflicting interpretations of the Land Acts of 1866 and 1868,_ and suggests the necessity of fresh legislation. This appears to be the head and front of our Brisbane contemporary’s offending. Probably, however, the real but unexpressed cause of the Attorney-General’s ire was to be found in a paragraph, setting forth that, according to a Parliamentary return, six cases tried before the Supreme Court, and now under appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, had put into the pockets of certain learned gentlemen employed by the Crown the sum of £2910 11s. 2d., while the Attorney-General’s own fees in these cases amounted to £5Bl 4s. 6d. The Courier expresses an opinion that such a “ by-path to legal gain should be closed, and that the Legislature should step in to cure the evils which its own detective work has called into being.” Now there is nothing whatever in these “ comments calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice,” or to “ bias the minds of judges and jurors.” The institution of these suits is a question of public policy, as much so as was the bringing to trial of Mr. Lalor and his friends for the riots at Ballarat twenty years ago, a proceeding strongly condemned by a section of the Victorian Press, both before and after the state trials had commenced. And this policy is a fair subject of criticism, and may bo legitimately canvassed accordingly. In the particular case referred to in Queensland, there seem to be special reasons for deprecating legal proceedings, and for recommending that

recourse should be bad instead to an Act to interpret existing Acts, inasmuch as these are being read very differently in 1875 to what they were in 1869. At any rate, the Brisbane Courier has shown that it does not mean to bo gagged, and is to be commended for the spirit it displays. '