New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1875.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4462, 8 July 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1875.

In another column we reprint an article from the Melbourne Argus, which has a direct bearing upon the status of the Bar in New Zealand. It will be seen from the Argus that the profession of “ gentle- “ menattornies ” in Victoria, managed to bar the way to a much needed reform ; and not content with their past victory, are now endeavoring, by statutory enactment, to create a very close and very dangerous professional monopoly. It is fortunate for the people of Victoria that it possesses a powerful and enlightened Press, which stands up in defence of their rights, because it is quite clear that the Victorian Bar is too dependent upon the attorneys for professional employment to take independent action in the matter. The liberties of the people are thus guarded and conserved by the newspapers, which the people, with characteristic ingratitude, do their utmost to muzzle and emasculate by means of punitive verdicts for honest and' necessary criticism. The Press, in the fearless discharge of its public functions, however, continues its struggle against monopoly and abuses, and in the long run doubtless will be sustained by an educated and enlightened public opinion. We think our Melbourne contemporary is wrong on one very material point, however. We refer to the argument in favor of a union of the two branches of the profession, as beneficial to suitors, or to persons who may have legal business to transact. New Zealand furnishes an illustration in point; and we can say, without fear of contradiction, that while the union of the two branches of the legal profession has had the effect of lowering the status of the Bar here, it has not acted beneficially in favor of clients. In other words, double fees are charged in all cases where advice of counsel is sought, or where counsel is retained, and these cases are simply all those in which it is possible to consult or employ counsel. _ If the Argus imagines that by licensing barristers to practise as attorneys and vice versa, the pockets of clients would be spared, it is laboring under a delusion, than which it is impossible to imagine any delusion more charmingly simple. A few months’ experience of New Zealand law practice would convince our contemporary of the truth of our remarks. He would find the course of procedure pretty much as follows. A person bent on invoking the aid of the law goes to the office of Messrs. A. and 8., barristers and solicitors, who undertake his business. Mr. A., as attorney, takes instructions, and consults Mr. B. as counsel, charging of course the usual consultation fee, and so on through the various stages for accumulating costs, till the cause is finally taken into court, where Mr. B.,instructed by Mr. A., appears as counsel. If the client is a man of substance, or if he be a man of straw and his opponent in the cause a man of substance, points are usually reserved, and a motion made for a new trial on the groundof misdirection by the Judge, or some technical objection to the finding of the jury. The motion for a new trial being made before the Judge who tried the cause, is usually granted, because there may be a possibility that justice has miscarried ; notice of trial is served, and in due course the cause again comes on for hearing. The finding may be as on the first trial, or it may he reversed ; in either case, an appeal lies to the Appeal Court, before which it is finally brought, to the very great profit of lawyers and loss of litigants. During the whole course of this protracted litigation, which we regret to state was encouraged in one Supreme Court district of this colony until it became a public scandal, the barristers and attorneys were piling up costs, which need not have been incurred, and would hardly have been so incurred, if the two branches of the profession had not been united, and the fees on either side went into one purse.

In New Zealand, the union of the professions of attorney and barrister has not worked well in practice ; but there is this to be said in extenuation, that the constitution of the Supreme Court of the colony had a direct tendency to bring about the evils of which the people here complain. A gentleman is appointed to a judicial district, and called the Supreme Court of New Zealand. He is endowed with irresponsible power. He exorcises all the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, without the restraining check which an educated Bar necessarily supplies, and without the advice and assistance of his colleagues on the bench. The profession, having to deal with a single Judge, study his weak points, and so strive to “ get “the ear of the Court,” and the practitioner who has the good luck to “ get ” the aforesaid “ear,” seldom fails on a motion for a new trial, or in an argument on demurrer. The demoralised state of the Dunedin Bar, if Bar it may be called, is the ripe fruit of our judicial system, in combination with the union of the two branches of the profession. The system could produce no other fruit; and if the Otago Supreme Court district has produced the largest heap of nastiness in the colony, it is because there were exceptionally strong forces in action .there, and the emoluments of the profession were better worth struggling for than in other districts. In corroboration of this view of the case, we may cite a letter which recently appeared in the Daily Times, in which the alleged cause of an unseemly outbreak of professional jealousy which has shocked the colony, was declared to be the transfer of professional business from one lawyer’s office to another. It was an attorney’s reason, however, and altogether degrading to the Bar, Let the Argus, therefore, be warned by what has taken place in New Zealand, and not consent to unite the two branches of the profession of the law, or the last state of Victoria will be worse than the first.

Circumstances alter cases. The other day the Otago Guardian condemned the San Francisco mail contract, and all its surroundings ; now, it regards the same contract ‘ ‘ as the most favorable and busi- “ ness-like arrangement that has yet boon “ made for this particular service.” What has caused this sudden and complete change of opinion'? The reply is simple and easy. Our contemporary has misunderstood the terms of the contract, and imagines that the through steamer to San Francisco will take its final departure from Port Chalmers. Such, however, will not be the case, as we

explained in a recent issue. Port Chalmers is undoubtedly to be the New Zealand terminus of the line, that is, the last port of arrival and first port of departure, and therefore it is to be a through service from Port Chalmers to San Francisco ; but the first port of arrival, and last port of • departure, will be Auckland. The main steamers of the new line will perform the coasting voyage as under the Webb contract. But our Otago contemporary does not apparently understand it in that way, for it says :

Alternative routes wore specified in the published conditions, one being similar to that now in use. The other, which has been finally decided upon, is from San Francisco to Sydney direct, and from Port Chalmers to San Francisco direct, —the mails to New Zealand being transhipped at, and forwarded from Kandavau, and the mails from Sydney being forwarded to. and transhipped at Kandavau. This is obviously the best route for New Zealand, and we are glad that it has been adopted. Ct moans a direct lino from this port to San Francisco, and a direct lino from the latter port to Sydney,—the vessel that leaves here taking over the Sydney mails at Kandavau, and proceeding on her course, without change or inconvenience to through passengers ; but passengers and mails from Sau Francisco for New Zealand will be sent on by a branch steamer from Kandavau.

We suspect our contemporary will scarcely be so ■ warm in its advocacy of the new service when it realises fully what it means. The Webb line broke down mainly, if not altogether, from the waste of time and money caused by the New Zealand coastal service ; and we incline to the opinion that Mr. Webb would have carried out his contract if he had not been so weighted. That contract was so framed to conciliate the Superintendent of Otago and ultra-provincialists ; but a similar reason cannot now be urged. The Otago Daily Times treats the question from a different point of view. It is opposed to the contract because it would interfere with the steam coastal trade, which is being developed by private enterprise, without the aid of subsidies ; and unless some very much stronger reason can be given, than the mere gratification and convenience of having large steamers visiting the principal harbors of tho colony, twice a month, we regard the Daily Times' position as unassailable. Private enterprise should not be interfered with unless some pressing public necessity demands such interference. The Lyttelton Times is of opinion that this necessity exists, and its reason is that although the last San Francisco mail arrived in Auckland two days before contract time, it arrived in Lyttelton one day after due date. This was doubtless an inconvenience to Canterbury and to Otago also, which must have shared in the delay ; but wo cannot go the length of our contemporary in putting all the blame on the New Zealand Steam. Shipping Company. There is something to be said on the other side, we have no doubt, and we suspect the New Zealand S.S. Company can answer the charge brought against them. However, as it is the only argument we have seen in favor of the coastal clauses of the contract, we reprint it for what it is worth. The Lyttelton Times says ;

There is one point, however, on which we may well congratulate ourselves, and that is, that a good coast service has been secured to us, so that the conveyance of our European mails to and from Auckland will no longer be left to the tender mercies of the New Zealand Steam Shipping Company. They managed to dawdle away three days on the arrival of the last mail at Auckland ; it reached - that port two days before its time, our letters reached us at Lyttelton one day after their proper time. Under the new arrangement. our homeward mails will bo conveyed through right from Otago to San Francisco in the same ship, which, howevex*, will call at Fiji to pick up the mails from Sydney. Our inward mails will be dropped at Fiji by the steamer which goes through to Sydney, and will be brought here by that ship belonging to the same company which will have recently brought the homeward mails from Sydney, and which will subsequently take the return mails from New Zealand to San Francisco. By this arrangement it will be absolutely necessary to employ competent and full-power ships on every part of the line, and as these cannot fail to become favox - - ites amongst those who have to travel from one of our pons lu 'auawi-itoj mu w,, to nreaxi uuxvxx mg monopoly which, till lately, existed in our coastal traffic, and so reduce the absurdly high fares which have been charged.

The Lyttelton Times also thinks that it was a mistake, to fix the maximum at £90,000 ; a wider margin might have induced one of the Transatlantic companies to tender, which is hardly likely. The Canterbury Press takes an opposite view of the contract. Tho Press writes ; We should like to know, tor instance, why Mr. Bussell accepted <x tender at £89,600, when he had one at £74,600. Tho difference between them was that the latter was tor a service \xa Auckland only, while under tho former tho steamers are to come on to Port Clxalraors. Is it really thought worth while to pay £16,000 a year simply to induce the large main steamers to run up and down the Now Zealand coast? It is no answer to this objection to say that New South Wales divides the cost with New Zealand. The question simply is, whether the £74,500 service via Auckland, would not have done as well as the £89,500 service via Port Chalmers. If the subsidy bo for a mail service only, the cheaper one would be of equal valfte to this colony j if it be to develope our coasting trade, tho answer to that is, that it is taxing tho colony to compete with New Zealand companies whoso vessels are not exempt from the enormous port, light, and harbor dues, as tho subsidised boats are.

We have fairly summarised the comments of the New Zealand Press on the new postal contract. If it be not irrevocable, we should prefer the cheaper service ; but New South Wales being a party to the contract, its wishes are to be respected. Wo think the now service, whichever route may bo finally selected, is likely to be carried out in its integrity. The co-operation of the Union and Central Pacific Railway Companies, which is secured through iho Pacific Steamship Company, is essential to the success of the service, for however punctual the boats may be on this side, the lino may acquire a bad name by reason of delays on the trans-continental journey from San Francisco to the Atlantic port. The English contractors will doubtless keep tho General Post Office in London up to the mark with regard to tho Atlantic portion of tho service.

The Guardian thereupon expressed regret for having reprinted the matter. Now, in a letter from our Dunedin correspondent in another column, he states that his authority for what he wrote about Dr. Bakewell was the reputed editor of the Otago Guardian, who professed to speak of what had occurred at the Governor’s levee from personal experience. Either one of two things is, therefore, certain. The reputed editor of the Guardian is not the editor in fact, or some one whose veracity is not to be trusted gave our correspondent the information.