THE SUPREME COURT AND MR. BARTON.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5382, 27 June 1878, Page 3

THE SUPREME COURT AND MR. BARTON.

The following correspondence hag taken place between Mr. G. E. Barton, M.H.R., and the Government :

Wellington, March 22, 1878. Sir, —I have the honor to forward to you the underwritten copies of three resolutions j>assed respectively by tbe Dunedin Bar, by tho Christchurch Bar, and by the persons present at a meeting of ray constituents held at tho Theatre Royal, Wellington. Dunedin Bar, March 9, 1878.

“ That this meeting, without expressing any opinion regarding the circumstances and dura* tion of Mr. Barton’s recent imprisonment, is of opinion, from his statement, that a fair case exists for an inquiry by Parliament in the interests of all parties concerned. —Carried by 1G to 3.”

Christchurch Bar, March IT, 1878. “ That this meeting having heard Mr. Barton’s statement, without expressing any opinion upon the circumstances leading to his recent imprisonment, consider that the fact of a severe and degrading punishment having been inflicted upon a member of the Bar for contempt of Court, calls for inquiry.—Carried unanimously ; seventeen barristers present.” Wellington Meeting, March 21, 1875. “ That it is the duty of tbe Government to hold an inquiry into the manner in which tbe Judges at Wellington have conducted the business of the Supreme Court, and to ascertain whether clients in Mr. Barton’s hands have been treated with injustice.—Carried by acclamation.”

And I have further the honor to request that the Government will make the inquiry accordingly. George Elliott Barion. The Hon. the Premier, Sir George Grey.

“ Brandon-atreet, Wellington, “March 25, 1878,

“ Sir, —In the letter I had the honor to send to you on the 22nd instant I stated that the resolution at the Chrischurch Bar was arrived at unanimously. “ Although such may be the fact I find that I have no right to state it as a fact. The words at the foot of the resolution are, “ carried without a division. —I have, &0., “ George Elliott Barton. “SirG. Grey, K.C.8.” “ Government Offices, “ Wellington, May 16, 1878. “ Sir, —I have been directed to inform you that consideration of the question raised by your letters of March 22nd and 25th, addressed to the Hon. the Premier, has been delayed through the unavoidable absence of Ministers from Wellington ; but that those questions will be considered, and the decision of the Government communicated to you, as soon as it has been possible to have a full meeting of the Cabinet. —I have, &c,, “E. Eox, “ Secretary to the Cabinet. George Elliott Barton, Esq., M.H.R., “ Wellington.”

“ Government Offices, “Wellington, June 1, 1878.

“Sir ( X have the honor to inform you that the Government have given most earnest and anxious attention to your two letters, forwarding three resolutions passed respectively by tho Dunedin Bar, the Christchurch Bar, and a meeting of the inhabitants of Wellington, and have come to the conclusion that the recommendation of the Dunedin Bar should ho adopted by yon, viz., that you should ask Parliament for an inquiry.—l have, &c., “G. Grey.”

“Wellington, Juno 17, 1878. “ s; rj J have the honor to acknowledge your letter of the Ist inst., which would have been earlier answered but for my absence at tho East Coast.

11 Xn it you inform me that the Government, having ‘given their most earnest and anxious consideration’ to the subject of my letter, ‘have come to the conclusion that the recommendation of the Dunedin Bar should be adopted by’ me, viz, that I ‘ should ask Parliament for an inquiry.’ “ The resolution of the Dunedin Bar merely affirms the abstract proposition, ‘ that in the opinion of the meeting a fair case exists for inquiry by Parliament in the interests of all parties concerned,’ but contains, so far as I can perceive, no recommendation that I should be the party to move for such an inquiry, nor does it suggest that such inquiry should be initiated in Parliament without the previous Government inquiry required by constitutional law. . .

“ According to the English authorities the proper constitutional course is laid down as follows ‘ That before any Parliamentary inquiry can be made into the conduct of Judges of the superior Courts, Ministers should themselves investigate the matters of complaint, with a view to determine whether they ought to oppose or facilitate the interference of Parliament.’ (Tod, p. 472.) And an English Attorney-General (Sir Frederick Pollock) has authoritatively stated that ‘ it is in fact an admitted principle that no Government should support a motion for inquiry into the conduct of a Judge unless they have first made an investigation, and are prepared to say that they think it is a fit case to bo followed up by an address for his dismissal;’ and the Parliament of New Zealand, by the Supreme Court Judges Act, 1858, has expressly empowered the Government to suspend any Judge until the next ensuing session of Parliament, thus confirming by statute the power of the Executive to inquire into and temporarily deal with judicial abuses during the recess of Parliament. It therefore appears clearly to he the constitutional law that before arly motion can be made in Parliament against a Judge a previous inquiry must be held by the Government. It was with a view to obtain that previous inquiry that I had the honor to write to you, and it is because such an inquiry is indispensable (as well as for other reasons) that it is impossible for me to adopt the course you have recommended. I cannot but regret that after a consideration extending over more than two months the Government should have arrived at the conclusion that no duty devolves upon them It appears to me that the clear and immediate duty of the Government was either to hold the inquiry or decide that none was needed. They have adopted neither course. Their recommendation to mo is an acknowledgement that the investigation is necessary • vet they refuse to incur the responsibility of making it, thus leaving it ODon to themselves ultimately to take whichever side may prove most convenient to them. They decline either to protect the reputation of their Courts or to vindicate the rights of suitors or the liberties of English subjects, while they recommend me to take a course which their Law Officers must have known would bo utterly futile. «The matter was laid before the Government with every guarantee that it was one urgently demanding inquiry. Iho two moat numerous and most skilled sections of the Bar and the constituency of the capital city of the colony, have certified that fact. ... “ In obtaining the opinions of those bodies for the support and guidance of ment, I expressly requested them to deal only with the public interests involved, and < not with the wrongs done to me as a private vidual. I did so in order to romovo all shadow of doubt that the question considered by those bodies, when passing their resolutions, was the public question, and it is hardly cons stent with candor that the Government should now treat it as if I had asked their assistance in a private matter. . , “I cannot refrain from expressing my deep disappointment that the Government should have taken so narrow a view of the subject. This is no more private quarrel between a barrister and two Judges of the Supreme Court. It is a case in which the Judges are charged with having grossly and corruptly violated the rights of suitors and the Bar; with having habitually perverted justice in order to wreak their malice against a particular advocate; and with having brought these proceedings to a climax by an arbitrary and illegal imprisonment, accompanied by circumstances of un-

usual harshness and degradation. X venture to think that such charges are of the greatest gravity, and that the refusal of tho Government to deal with them cannot bo justified. I have done my part; X have asserted in tbe Courts the rights of suitors; I have brought to an issue, ia my own person, the question of the rights of the Bar; and I have obtained and laid before the Government the tluec important resolutions I had the honor to forward in my first letter. Tims I have conducted the matter to the stage where my duty ends and that of the Government begins. All tbe broad principles of liberty and equal justice were at stake in this matter, and the Government have failed to stand by them. By tbe course they have taken they have declared the Judges absolute aud irresponsible, aud judicial abuses beyond remedy. They have closed the only door of appeal from an improper exercise of a power of imprisonment such as is possessed by no other power in the State, not even the Crown. They have emboldened the Judges to act fearlessly, iu accordance with their public defiance — ( We care neither for Press nor Parliament;’ and they have effectually deterred any private person, layman or lawyer, from the folly of becoming the maik tor judicial vengeance by resisting or exposing any injustice, oppz-ession, or tyranny whatsoevei'. —I have, &c., “ George Elliott Barton. “ Sir Geoi’ge Grey, K. 0.8., &o.” “ Govei'nment Offices, “Wellington, Juno 26, 1878. “Sir, —The Government have considered with great care your letter of the 17th instant addi'essed to the Premier, in which you ex-’ press deop disappointment at the decision communicated to you by Sir George Grey’s letter of June Ist, to the effect that iu the opinion of the Government the course you should pursue with respect to your complaints against Judges of the Supreme Court is that pointed to by tho resolution of members of the Dunedin Bar, namely, that you should yourself ask Parliament for an inquiry into those complaints. “ 2. The Government have desired togive duo weight to the authorities quoted in your letter, but they cannot recognise that those authorities support your argument, that the decision ah’eady come to on your case should be reversed. Indeed, Ministers believe that they have each for himself investigated the matter of complaint as far as possible with the material at their command, in order to determine whether they ought to oppose or facilitate the interference of Parliament; thus complying with tho rule laid down by Mr. Tod; and their decision was arrived at after consultation subsequent to such investigation. “ 3. Ministers have failed to discover that any authority shows that it can be their duty to attempt to .bring Judges of the Supreme Court before any court of inqury prior to a reference of the whole matter of complaint to Parliament, unless a case should occur which called for instantaneous action on the part of the Executive ; and the Government do not think that the present is such a case. They can only I’epeat, therefore, that they are satisfied they have done all tlzey ought to do, by way of investigation preliminary to an appeal to Parliament, should you resolve to make it.— I have, &c.,

“J. Ballancb, “ (in the absence of the Premier.) “ George E. Barton, Esq., M.H.8.”