South Canterbury Times. TUESDAY, JAN. 6, 1880.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2118, 6 January 1880, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. TUESDAY, JAN. 6, 1880.

Justice Richmond, of Wellington, would appear to have an exceedingly inflated opinion of Grand Juries, and a correspondingly low opinion of Common Juries and inferior benches. It is refreshing to observe a dignitary of large experience and lofty ideas condescending, as Justice Richmond has done, to criticise the presiding deities of lesser thrones. More especially is such criticism valuable when it is shed invohmtarily, and when, like the quality of mercy, It droppeth like the gentle dew from heaven, Upon the place beneath. Wc can conjecture, though we may not be able to fully appreciate, how sweet the amiable language of the learned judge must have fallen on the upturned ears of the Grand Jurymen addressed. Of course it never occurred to thorn when they were assured of their extraordinary importance and inestimable value, that even the flattery of a Supreme Court judge, when earned to an excess, becomes fulsome, and that Praise undeserved, Is censure in disguise. If our telegram’ conveys accurately the sentiments expressed by Justice Richmond, that important authority on matters judicial holds very decided views

bn representative institutions and tribunals generally. If : lie lias, an exalted opinion of Grand Juries, and delicacy did not forbid his saying so iu bis charge to the G rand Jury at Wellington, he apparently holds the lower orders — the Common Jury, the common people, and their parliamentary representatives—in utter contempt. Wc are told that—- ; “ His Honor spoke strongly in favor of the preservation of the Grand Jury as .standing, between the Government and the people, and able to prevent vexatious prosecutions. Although the committing magistrates had hitherto executed their duties in a highly commendable manner, yet they were liable to favor the Government. from whom they obtained their bread and butter, in political prosecutions, He saw that a dangerous power would he given to the Govern.ment unless Grand Juries were preserved. He admitted that the Grand Jury system was somewhat cumbrous and needed improvement, hut it was a protection to the liberty of the subject.” Our experience of Grand Juries hitherto, has led ns to regard them as a sort of surplusage, hut after tin’s as-

surance of Justice Richmond that they form a merciful wall between the Government and the people, wc suppose we must have been mistaken. > Although the Government is directly responsible to the public, the learned justice is evidently of opinion that without the restraint of the Grand Jury vexations political prosecutions might flourish nn checked. This is a serious reflection on our law manufacturers as well as mulaw observers, for it assumes that the the people and their representatives cannot safely be entrusted with the control of their own affairs. lir the estimation of this celebrated administrator, people and Parliament would probably commit unpardonable outrages on society hut for the safeguard of the infallible Grand Juries. Yet in countries where Grand Juries arc a thing unkown, political prosecutions are very rare, while in places like Ireland and New Zealand where the Grand Jury system is retained, a lingering remnant of the dark despotic past, political prosecutions are unpleasantly frequent. If the people and their Parliament arc so dangerous and the Grand Jury so valuable, what a pity it is that the powers of the latter are not sufficiently elastic to enable them to step in between the judge and barrister, so that

the Colony may be saved such terrible judicial scandals as unfortunately in defercnccjto this ungrateful judge and bis colleagues, a servile bench-worshipping Parliament was foolish enough to gloss over! Mr Justice Richmond’s reference to tlie magisterial bench is excessively unkind. "\Vc readily acknowledge, and we have called attention to the fact that as the result of its poverty the magisterial bench in Xew Zealand is inotlicient and frequently incompetent. But unlike tins outspoken “top-sawyer” we never suggested that sordid, impure or corrupt motives could inllncncc the decisions of our magistrates. If Mr Justice Richmond is correctly reported, he has offered an unjustifiable affront to the bench of Xew Zealand, and seeing that it is this bench from which he derives his “ bread and butter,” ho can hardly bo complimented on the taste be has displayed. Mr Justice Richmond may be highly pleased with the Grand Jury system, but ordinary prudence, and a sense of justice should induce him to ventilate his approbation without indulging in disparaging references to the people, their representative institutions, and tribunals which, however inferior they may be in his estimation, are honest, if poor and poorly paid. Xeitlier money nor position contribute to integrity, and a magistrate who earns his few hundreds a-year, and holds a position of responsibility, is quite as likely to fearlessly obey the mandates of his conscience apart from all jjrivate feeling, as the wearer of ermine, who draws his thousands from the treasury, and frowns Avith lofty contempt on the people and the institutions that support him.