The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, OCTOBER, 29, 1878.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5488, 29 October 1878, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, OCTOBER, 29, 1878.

.Rkei'lon is a town of' tho West Coast goldfields. it undergoes tho vicissitudes to which mining interests are subject, and what we may call its municipal temper reflects the varying fortunes of the district of which it is the centre. . We gather that times have been somewhat “ hard” at Reefton of late, and that squabbles, which in prosperous days would have been but a bubble on the sparkling stream of progress, take a baleful form on tho stagnant pool of “ tightness” and discontent. The local journals aro the mirrors of, the time, and the local journals, like Rowl and Sir Georob Grey, have hold of each other’s -■'hair. ■■ ; , Tho “Inangahua Times,” it appears, made some time since, unwittingly, an untruthful statement in regard , to a Mr. Davies, but immediately thereafter, having discovered the. mistake, the editor retracted it completely,, and'in the fullest and most .graceful manner apologised for the very wrongful act that had been committed. Mr,

. Davies was not satisfied, and a criminal . prosecution for libel was commenced against the editor .of the “Inangahua Times,” whose name, it appears, is Potts. A little operation regarding: the sale of a mine which appears to have been generally regarded as “pretty smart,” touched the individual interest of a miner named Charles Clifford, who was induced thereby to write a letter to tho “ Inaugahua Times,” in which, in regard to the salo in question, four gentlemen, Messrs. William Rath by, battery manager ; Charles Mirfin, newspaper proprietor ; Louis Davies, sharebroker; and Arthur R. Guinness, barrister-at-law, were somewhat roughly handled by the indignant minor. For this also a criminal prosecution was instituted by the aggrieved persons, and as it appeared that in both cases the articles charged were libellous, the police magistrate had no discretion, and was obliged to commit the defendants for trial at the Supreme' Court in the October session at Hokitika. Both these were in the character of private prosecutions, and entirely out of tho category of cases which are taken up aud prosecuted on behalf of the Crown at the public cost. They cannot be said to have any interest whatever beyond the locality in which the squabbles arose. The rule is that the Crown does not take up such cases, and the Crown Prosecutors are instructed accordingly. Some unusual influence must have been brought to bear upon tho Minister of Justice in reference to these local squabbles, as they have been raised to the dignity of public prosecutions by the Crown at the cost of tho Colony. Very many of the witnesses were brought from Reefton to Hokitika, where the Supremo Court sat, and they were kept, at great expense, for several days in waiting. In the case of Davies v. Potts the Grand Jury ignored the criminal indictment for libel. It is said that there was general indignation at the interference of the: Government, and at the.persistence of the prosecutor after the defendant had retracted his misstatements and apologised. A true bill was found in the case of Charles Clifford, and his trial proceeded. Wo quote from the report of that trial given in ,a local newspaper the following curious passage Mr. Button inquhed whether Mr. South appeared an Crown Prosecutor, or whether merely as counsel instructed for the • rosecution. Mr. South said that Mr. Button could not assume that ho was not in his proper nlace. His Honor said he understood Mr. Button merely to inquire whether Mr, South was proseentine on behalf of tho Crown, or who was the prosecutor—whether in fact. It was a private or public prosecution f Mr. S'*uth : It is quite sufficient for mo to state that I am in my place offic'ally. His Honor did not see any reason for any reticence in the matter. Mr. South had received his instructions from the proper quarter. He was nob in the habit of interfering. His Honor did not think Mr, Button was interfering. He had merely asked if that was a private or public prosecution. Mr. South did not consider Mr. Button had a right to ask the question. He declined to say what authority he held or from whom, and lie felt it a personal matter. ‘ , His Honor presumed that Mr. Button had made the inquiry, wishing to know on whom the costs would fall, for if tho Government interfered it deprived the subject of costs. Mr. South then said that he had received instructions from the Government to appear and prosecute. Mr. Button remarked that that was all lie wanted to know, and his Honor added that it might therefore be deemed a Government prosecution. Tho matter then dropped. Mr. South, the Crown Prosecutor, was as reticent as a Commissioner of Telegraphs ; as the information required had to be “ dragged out,” wo may assume that he was ashamed of his position. The defendant was acquitted. Clifford is a poor man. His counsel, Mr. Button, said that he had not got a shilling by way of fee, but that feeling indignant at the facts 1 surrounding the ease he had interested himself on behalf of the defendant, and, as it appears, with success. The intervention of the Crown in the case relieved the plaintiffs from tho costs of the prosecution which they had initiated and placed the charges on tho back of tho public. As no costs can be recovered against the Crown in criminal oases the unfortunate defendant was thus debarred of the right which he would have had to recover costs from the real plaintiffs ; this he would have done if the case had beenj as it ought to have been, allowed to remain a private prosecution. Tho costs or these two cases will, we are informed, be not much less than £IOOO. .Now we are curious to know how or by whom the Minister of Justice, Mr. Sheehan, was induced to travel out of tho ordinary course .on this occasion and, by instructing Mr. South to take up the little village squabble as a Crown prosecution, to save the plaintiffs from the pecuniary liabilities to which they had committed themselves. He had thus debarred one of Sir George Grey’s proteges, a “ poor man,” from recouping the costs to which himself and the witnesses ho was obliged to bring from a distance were put, and from recovering from his prosecutors the money spent in defending himself against a criminal charge for libel, of which he was found, “not guilty.” , Speaking on this subject, the “West Coast Times” says “In the case in “ question, four persons were libelled in “ a letter to a 'newspaper, but beyond “tliom, the wrong done did not affect “ one single person to the value of a <•' brass farthing. However, tho case was “ taken over by tho Government, wit- “ nesses were subpoenaed, and brought a “distance of some hundred miles, the “ Crown Prosecutor was instructed to “appear, counsel in addition were raff tained, and, in fact, had Clifford been “ a murderer and scoundrel of tho deepest “ dye, instead of a harmless miner, who “ had written an ill-advised and foolish “ letter, greater zeal on tiie part of tho “ criminal officers of the Crown could not “ have been displayed in endeavoring to “. procure . a conviction. This singular “ activity bn tho part of the Government “will cost the Colony some £4OO, and “when tho debt and credit balance of “ the various Provincial districts is next “struck, this item will aid to swell tho “ cost of the ‘ Administration of justice “ in'Westland. ’ ” This is a fair subject for inquiry in Parliament. A very largo sum of public money lias been spent in these two cases. Why was this thusf Has any gentleman having a, .vote been 'gratified ?Why has tho Crown intervened in a village squabble, and why have a thousand pounds of the' money of the people, “of the men and of the women and of tho little children ’ been wasted in a fruitless effort to punish two unfortunates who, after the Eatonswill* fashion, : hud . spoken ill . of their neighbors, but probably did not use stronger language than may bo hoard any ■ day addressed . by honorable gentlemen on one side to honorable gentlemen opposite; Wo hope that some one will ask the Minister of Justice about these Beefton prosecutions, and that we

shall know to whom we are indebted for this waste of public money, and this oppression of the poor and weak by the strong arm Of, the Crown.' ■ , ' The managers oi the free conference of both Houses of the Legislature on the amendments made by the Legislative Council in the Electoral Bill have failed to come, to a satisfactory agreement. The following report was presented to the Council yesterday : The managers of the Legislative Council, at the free conference on tho subject of the Electoral Bill, beg le<*v# to report that, upon the subject of tho clauses relating to tho leasehold qualification, the miner’s right qualification, and the number of votes to bo given by each elector, they offered to make such concessions as would meet the views of the managers for the House of Representatives. Upon tho subject, however, of Cause 17,. prescribing tho qualiftcatioi for Maori electors, they have been unable to arrive at any agreement. Your managers were of opinion that this clause should remain in tho shape in which it was originally introduced by tho Government, to which the managers of the House of Representatives would not agree. O. M. Waterhouse Jonx Hall Mathew Holmes George Buckley. Ifc will be seen that upon all the points in dispute, except that of the Maori franchise as defined in the clause which now stands as 17 in the Bill as amended, the Council has expressed its willingness to give way. In the Bill as it came to the Council the Maori would have had tho freehold franchise, the household franchise, and tho residential franchise equally with the European. His special representation would be retained, and in addition it was proposed to enact—--17. Every male Maori of the full age of twenty-one years shall (subject to tho provisions of this *ct)ba qualified to vote in tho election of members for the House of Representatives, but shall only be so qualified if his name is enrolled -upon a ratepayers' roll in force within the district in respect to which he claims to vote. Struck out.. _ {a.) He is seized at ww or iu equity vn *.* u * tenements for his own life or for the life of any other person, or for any larger estate of tho clear value of twenty five pounds at the • least, anil has been seised for six months previous to tho <)*to of his claim to vote; or if (b.) His name is enrolled on a ratepayers’ roll In force within the district for which he claims to vote ou account of lands or tenements belonging to him, and shall have actually paid his rates for tho year in which his claim to vote is made. • Nothing herein shall affect any ri-iuc or priVi.ege conferred upon or granted to Maoris under tho Maori Repiesentation Act, 1867, or any Act amending the same. Tho words in italics were .not in the clause when the Bill was passed by the House of Representatives, but they were in tho BUI when it was first brought in by the Government. What the Legislative Council have done is this : By inserting the words “ not being a Maori” in clause 14 they have confined tho exercise of the freehold, household, and residential franchise, as defined in the clause, to Europeans ; in the clause 17, above quoted, they have restored the words in italics, and have struck out the sub-sections (a) and (6). The Maori thus would have hia special representation, and if, and whenever, he is willing to pay rates, from which he is now exempt, upon His freehold or upon his house, his name will be placed upon the electoral rolls as a ratepayer in the same manner as the European names are placed, without giving him the trouble of making an .application for tho purpose; he would then be entitled to vote with the Europeans at every election in the district for which he is enrolled. We have taken some trouble to state the case clearly in order to avoid any misrepresentation of the action of the Legislative Council in the matter. It is rumored that tho Government, if the determination of the Council cannot be shaken, will drop the Bill. It will in that case be evident that the control of the elections by moans of the Maori vote was what the Government really sought, and that in other respects tho great v .Bill is a sham, ■ •