The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND FRIDAY, APRIL 11, 1930 A MILLION FOR A JUDGE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 945, 11 April 1930, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND FRIDAY, APRIL 11, 1930 A MILLION FOR A JUDGE

AN attack has been made in the Federal Parliament of Australia on Sir Adrian Knox, who recently resigned the office of the Chief Justice of the Commonwealth in order to enjoy a legacy worth, it is said, a million pounds. A Labour member at Canberra yesterday described the learned judge’s resignation “as a sensational exit from the Judiciary after his hand had been exposed and after having become a beneficiary to the extent of £1,000,000 under the will of a man who had thrown thousands of families into suffering and misery.” The exit at least must have been a pleasant sensation for the former Chief Justice. Sir Adrian Knox is sixty-seven years of age and, knowing the measurement of the Psalmist’s span, presumably desires to make the most of the years that are left to him and the munificent sum of money that should command a perfect icisui e. tor over forty years the Sydney-born lawyer and politician who has had a fortune thrust upon him worked hard with honour and distinction in his prefession and probably found it lucrative enough to place him beyond the need of a record legacy in Australia. Put, “unto him that hath. . . The only break in his legal career was a short term as a representative member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly irj> his callow days. No doubt he found in politics both a diversion and a step-ladder to a higher place in the affairs of his country and, obviously now, to a greater fortune. Like all great lawyers he always “had a list to starboard where the big fees lie.” As a pleader at the Par of New South Wale.s the millionaire beneficiary of a mining millionaire had occasion to render promi11Gnf serv * ce f° the late Mr. John Brown, who has been described as “one of oddest characters Australia has produced.” Indeed, the political attack on his principal legatee may be looked upon as a violent thrust at the testator who, in his lifetime, had a bleak way of dealing with malevolent criticism. John Prown belonged to the old school of self-made men. First a miner with -exact knowledge of how much work a hewer could do in eight hours underground, he became the coal-king of New South Wales. This knowledge made him a relentless, perhaps a ruthless, capitalist. It has been noted in Australia, as a counterblast to an outburst of flattery which, after his death, was such as would have brought to his poker face in life a penetrating look, of inquiry as if he were calculating the possible motive and cost” that, counting his own wealth in millions, he declared that the future of the coal industry demanded the reduction of wages by one-half. And there never was any doubt about his determination to compel the miners to work harder for their relatively high wages. So many biographical anecdotes have been told about Australia’s John Brown and his joyless, solitary fight for wealth accumulation and pursuit of pleasure that it would be easy to construct out of them a misleading picture of the man, and a wrong estimate of his character. For example, he imported highpriced thoroughbred sires, and his paddocks were grazed by numbers of untried colts and fillies—too many ever to be trained. When he sold a racehorse on the advice of a trainer, and it afterwards won a good race for the man who bought it, he sacked the trainer. Asked on the occasion his horse, the favourite, failed to win the Melbourne Cup, to explain its failure, he curtly replied* “Go and ask the boy who was on the top of him.” Such was the hard millionaire and his manner. Now that his race, too, is over and ended in a way which has left his friends wondering whether it was a success or a failure, it may be noted as some kind of fine tribute to his memory that he at least was constant in friendship and rewarded his friends probably beyond their merits. It is difficult to see why there should be churlish talk of Sir Adrian Knox’s hand having been exposed. The former Chief Justice had nothing to do with the amassing of John Brown’s fortune. And even a wise judge need not be judged harshly for having the wisdom to accept a million pounds in preference to serving an ungrateful nation. And it is always possible that he will spend it in a more sympathetic way than it could have been spent by his benefactor. A man with a million undoubtedly would feel stuffy in a judge’s wig. THE RUGBY PARLIAMENT QUESTIONS of greater interest than usual were- decided last evening at the annual meeting of the New Zealand Rugby Union which, with its gathering of 80 delegates from all parts of the Dominion, is a Rugby Parliament in its own right. By the visit of the British Rugby team several controversial questions have been given added prominence. In the most important of these, the question of rules, the annual meeting chose the easiest way out when it adopted the general principle that all matches this season be played under the old rules, though unions which choose to do so may play their club games under the amended laws. The reversion to old rules is admitted to be merely a temporary expedient to give New Zealand sides a better chance against the British team, though whether it will have the effect hoped for is a different question altogether. If, as conservative elements claim, the standard of New Zealand Rugby lias decayed under the pernicious influence of the new rules, the advocates of the change surely do not seriously expect that six or seven days’ play under the old rules from May to June 21, when the first test will be played, will be sufficient to restore it. Hence if New Zealand is successful against the British team—and there is .no real reason to fear that she will not be—it will be entirely illogical -to claim credit for the old rules. The uew rules, which have unquestionably made forwards faster, quicker at harrying the opposing backs, and readier to grasp opportunities, will be as much entitled to acclaim. The difficulty is that the minds of the controllers of New Zealand Rugby just now appear to be extraordinarily confused. The freedom of action given individual unions under last evening’s dispensation only aggravates the confusion. One union will be playing old rules for its club matches, while its neighbour will be playing the new rules. What of junior games, senior B, junior, and all lower grade representative fixtures? Special rulings will have to be given to cover such eases.

The New Zealand Union placed itself in an equally false position over the broadcasting. Had it explained from the start that it was quite willing to permit the broadcasting of matches on payment of a reasonable fee by the Broadcasting Company, public sympathy -would have supported it. As it is, public sympathy swung against the union, which has had to mate an unconditional surrender. Up to a point, the result is as it should be. Country settlers and patients in hospitals will be able to listen-in to the matches. But the New Zealand Radio Broadcasting Company, in its pursuit of cheap programmes, is getting a valuable privilege for nothing, and that is manifestly inequitable.