South Canterbury Times, WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1882.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2841, 3 May 1882, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1882.

There can be no prouder reflection for a people than to know that its chief seats of justice are occupied by men of spotless integrity. It has always been the pride of Great Britain that, with scarcely an exception, her judges have been men of irreproachable character, alike in their judicial and in their private capacity,:—that in all the changes of the political atmosphere the judges have been faithful to their duty and superior to temptations or threats. And in the colonies, with very few exceptions, the judges- have proved themselves worthy of their lofty and dignified office. We in New Zealand have reason to congratulate ourselves upon their integrity and superiority to party influence. In no case in the history of the colony has this been more prominently brought forward than it has just been at the trial of Titokowaru and other natives,before Mr Justice Gillies, at New Plymouth. His Honor’s charge to the Grand Jury, in reference to these two notable chiefs of the Maori race, will take its place in the judicial history of the colony as an outspoken and manly utterance, reflecting honour and credit upon the judge from whom it proceeded. ' If ever an occasion presented itself for a judge to ingratiate himself with the party in power without risk of being himself reflected upon it was on this occasion. The country had just recovered from a scare. Popular feeling, on the subject of the, native difficulty at any rate, had been heartily with the Government. Only a few persons had raised a protest against what they considered an injustice and an illegality. A Judge of the Supreme Court sitting in judgment on prominent native agitators might (if he had any inclination to pander to the populace or seek the favour of the Government of the day), have easily done so. In this case however, the Judge did not scruple to express his honest convictions and to define exactly the position in the eye of the law of Ministers in taking the step they did at Parihaka. His Honor’s charge is uncommonly clear and emphatic—so much so that he who runs may read. The proceedings of the Government were taken under the “West Coast Settlements Act, 1880,” and His Honor pointed out that under this Act the Government had power to take into custody anyone obstructing the operations of the law. The natives, however, had only sat still ; though this would have amounted to obstruction

if, on being ordered not to do so by a properly appointed person, they had refused. The only person in whose province it lay to give such an order was the Governor. His Excellency, however, was away from the colony at the time, and there was nothing in the Act that authorised any of his Ministers to usurp his 'functions, as was actually done in the case of the recent difficulty atParihaka. The proclamation issued by the Acting-Governor conveyed, in point of fact, not an order but a recommendation to the Natives to disperse ; and those Natives who were taken into custody were so taken therefore illegally, and not by the proper authority. All these considerations, the judge pointed out were quite apart from the motives which actuated the Government. It was simply a question ot legal right. At this point, His Honor impressed upon the jury, (and this was the most memorable portion of the charge) that the legislative wisdom of the country was amenable to the Supreme Court. The Government might act illegally, and then, in a moment of popular excitement get Parliament to ratify their acts. But \vhen such action was brought before the Court to he adjudicated upon, all considerations hut those of actual legality must he dropped out of mind by the jury. It may suit “ the hook.” of “ inspired organs ” to toady to the Government and to asperse the judicial character of His Honor, hut these he may well treat with contemptuous silence. His fellow-colonists in general will estimate his manliness atits proper value. For ourselves all we can say is thntit is very satisfactory to find the preeminence of the law maintained so ably and so firmly, and Judge Gillies has given us the strongest and most convincing proof that ability, firmness, and purity, are distinctive characteristics of the Judicial Bench of New Zealand.