New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5132, 4 September 1877, Page 2

New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1877.

Now that the temporary'heat caused by the discussion of the Baeton petition has died away, we may be permitted toi say a word or two in reference to the matter. In the first place we may point out that the New Zealand Times did not endeavor to injure Mr. Barton’s cause by any suppression, although we fear it is. hopeless to attempt to show that gentleman that this paper has no desire to act unfairly towards him. If he will con-, descend to remember, however, he will do us the justice to admit that the Times alone in Wellington published his. petition in • full, and thereby, as, it were, stated the case for the complainant in extenso. To the defence of that petition, if it may be so called; where really no defence' was needed, we scarcely did so much justice ; but Mr. Barton, we fancy, cannot complain that his case was not fully and fairly stated by us. And now, having said so much, we may, without entering at all into the fitness of the action taken by the Wellington Bar, point out that the action of the House of Representatives in regard to Mr. Barton’s petition was in accordance with strict justice. Mr. Barton made certain chargesagainstChief Justice PrenDEEGASTandMr J ustice Richmond, prayed for an enquiry into the truth of these charges, and asked that if their truth should be established those gentlemen should be removed from the Bench. Now any sensible man reading the petition would unhesitatingly affirm . that even if Mr.- Barton’s allegations were quite proved they furnished no grounds for the removal of the Judges; and this is in effect what the House affirmed. They said to Mr. Barton : “ You have stated certain things, which you assert, if they be true, should entail removal upon the Judges. : Our opinion is, that no matter how true these things may be they do not furnish grounds for removing Messrs. Prendergast and Richmond, therefore we dismiss your petition.” This was really what any man of common sense would have said. But of course it has not satisfied certain people with a grievance, who are ready to sympathise with Mr. Barton, and who have therefore talked and written a great deal of nonsense, rhodomontade, and rigmarole about a very simple matter. It would be well if these gentlemen, who profess themselves so anxious for the pure administration of justice, would bear in mind that a deathblowto what theyprofess to desire would be at once administered if the principle were admitted that upon every frivolous or trivial complaint against the Judges of the Supreme Court Parliament wore immediately to set about an investigation—to haul the Judges over the coals as it were, and to administer a wigging to such of them as were complained against; We might as well, if this practice were to be followed, introduce the American system of electing Judges ; it would be almost preferable to putting the Bench upon its trial everytime anyone thinking himself- aggrieved by it took it into his head to petition Parliament on the subject. If anything would ,tend to degrade the administration of justice in the colony, would tend to lessen the Supreme Court Bench in the eyes of the people, and divest the Judges of that character for strict and fearless, im-’ partiality which English Judges have always maintained, it would be ; the encouragement by Parliament of everyone who thought he ' had a complaint against the J udges to petition, for and obtain an inquiry tending to their removal. Should any petition disclose grounds which, if proved, would absolutely demand the removal of Judges, we would be the last to deprecate inquiry and due action by Parliament concerning the same ; but when a petition discloses no grounds demanding a removal,. 1 that' petition should be treated as Mr. Barton’s was )