The Standard. (PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY, AND SATURDAY.) TUESDAY, JANUARY' 27, 1874.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume II, Issue 127, 27 January 1874, Page 2

The Standard. (PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY, AND SATURDAY.)

TUESDAY, JANUARY' 27, 1874.

“ We shall sell to no man justice or right: We shall deny to no man justice or right We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

Civilization, —or, at least, that’part of it which has drunkenness and rowdyism for its representatives—has, evidently, taken up its position in Poverty Bay before the Institutions, of which it is the main-stay and support, are ready for its reception. Theoretically man carries his institutions about with him as a pedlar does his stock in trade. He has merely to plant himself in a soil congenial to the growth and due development of that particular article, and his cherished institutions rear their heads as monuments of his historic greatness. These, we are told, are evidences of his power, his freedom, his liberty, his very birthright — a goodly heritage, whose pride is its antiquity, whose value its sure possession. Practically, however, this is not so. And we have only to look around us, at the state in which several of the institutions, —of the value of which we profess so much—are allowed to remain, to find many practical proofs of the false data of the theory. Putting Churches, Schools, Hospitals, Music,—and other solid foundations upon which society mainly builds its structures —aside for the present, we would say a word or two about that other element so essential to our safety and liberty, namely justice. 11 needs no special, or recondite arguiiH'nts to shew that justice, pure and simple, —by that we mean, rewarding the innocent and punishing the guilty —is at the very root of all our boasted civilization.

According to our idea, society does receive its guerdon, when stern Justice condemns the unworthy members of it to punitive infliction, or incarceration. The punishment of the guilty, is, therefore, in a sense, the reward of the innocent. Nothing, on the other hand, militates so much against the potency of justice, as an inability to carry the impartial and unfailing administration of it into effect. To adjudge a wrong doer to certain pains and penalties, and then fail in giving effect to them, is a most certain means of bringing authority into contempt. All Authority must have Power at its back, or it is useless; otherwise we find an absence of that respect for the one, and wholesome dread of the other, which should be the guiding principle of all—innocent and guilty alike. We found a vivid illustration of this on Saturday afternoon last, (to name one among a number), in the Resident Magistrate’s Court. A woman — accused of having assaulted a man by hitting him on the head with a stone appeared before Dr. Nesbitt and behaved in such a contumacious manner that his Worship had her removed to the lock-up, and, in reply to. her husband’s subsequent enquiry, said she “ had been committed to jail for contempt of Court, and would have to remain there one week.” This was very proper, (for while official dignity must be observed, we commend the good sense generally displayed by Dr. Nesbitt, in not taking heed to everyword, not deliberately intended as an insult to the Court), but Cui bono ? Before the Court rose the Sergeant of Police informed the Magistrate that “ he had no place to keep the prisoner in, as he had three male prisoners in the jail, and no accommodation for them, much less for a woman 1” The consequence was that the Court was put to the humiliating expedient of virtually asking the prisoner to apologise to it, in order to obtain her instant releasel Dr. Nesbitt wisely looked ahead of the difficulty by enquiring, “ suppose she won’t apologise ?” But luckily, (we say luckily under the circumstances), she did apologise, and was set free. We need not probe the depths of forensic casuistry in further support of that for which we are contending —that justice, so administered, not only fails in its mission, but it is

held in contempt, and is, in fact, a reductio ad abaurdum. Better far to pocket the insults we have no means of resenting, that to threaten with a punishment we cannot inflict. Taking the whole department of Justice as it is here, into one view, we state deliberately that it is simply a disgrace. In no other Province but Auckland, and in no other town but Gisborne, would such a state of things be allowed to exist; and we earnestly hope that the General and Provincial Governments will see to the instant removal of scandals, which are the outcome of persistent neglect. The business of the Court is increasing weekly, the sittings occupying three or four days in the week. Both Magistrate and officers are miserably underpaid, and the accommodation is too scant for public convenience. In the Block House, matters are far worse than may be understood from the bare fact that there is “no accommodation for ladies ” there. Security there is none, forthe prisoners out - number, and, in some instances, are quartered with, the force in charge of them. There are no out-officcs, and the personal decencies —to say nothing of the absolute requirements—of life are allowed to take care of themselves. No one knows better than Dr. Nesbitt that this department requires remodelling. No one suffers more than he from annoying humiliations to which Magistrates ought not to be exposed; therefore, the public naturally turn to *him and his brother Magistrates for explanation. Our own belief is that if strong official representations were made to both Governments by the united Magistracy of the Bay, a removal of this huge blot would be speedily effected.