Correspondence.

Colonist, Volume IV, Issue 329, 14 December 1860, Page 3

Correspondence.

To the Editor of the (Jobnist. Sir—-I haye looked attentively through the various published proceedings of the late General Assembly with adesho to learn the giounds upon which that honorable House felt themselves justified,, not only-in usurping the highest prerogative of the Crown, but absolutely reversing its judgment, on a case of appeal to it from a decision of a Bench of Magistrates. I will venture to say that such an interference on I the part of a Legislative Assembly was never before attempted, much less acquiesced in, by the responsible advisers of the Crown. I I will not now enter upon the merits of the case; but I take ray stand upon the broad principle that the stream of justice any more than the current of a river cannot run backwards, A defendant, dissatisfied with the verdict of a Court before which he is cited, has the power to appeal in some cases to the superior Courts of judicature; in others to the highest Courts of Appeal in the country, [n the case I refer to, ' The Queen v. Stamper,' the appeal was to the Queen's Representative in this colony lor a remission of a penalty awarded by a Bench of local Magistrates, which appeal, after due consideration (it is to be presumed), was dismissed. The defendant, however, not satisfied, as is natural enough, appeals against the prerogative of the Crown as exercised by its representative here by presenting a Petition to the Legislative Assembly, of the exact wording of which lam ignorant; but I presume complainiug of the conduct of his Excellency the Governor in not granting the prayer of his appeal, and begging the honorable House to take his case in hand, and teach his Excellency and his responsible advisers better manners: which they, it appears, very condescendingly did by reversing his Excellency's decision, and ordering, as I am informed, the Colonial Treasurer to refund the money: whether with costs I did not hear. If I am correct in thus stating the case, I venture to say it is the most outrageous attack upon the due administration of justice that ever was perpetrated; and how any minister would allow, as far as his vote or silence would go, such a Petition to be entertained I confess 1 cannot understand. Let me suppose the case of a criminal condemned to death. The Crown upon appeal sees grounds to grant a reprieve; the prosecutor appeals to the House of Commons, stating Justice will not be satisfied if the man is not hanged; and the House in the plenitude of its power and wisdom agrees with the prosecutor, and calls for a revocation of the Crown's decree. If such is to be the course pursued, the sooner the imperial Parliament relieves the Crown and its advisers from the mockery of its supposed supremacy, and reduces it to the third instead of the first Branch of the Constitution the better. The theory of the Constitution will coincide with the practical operation of it as evinced in the case alluded to. Again we find a strong analogy to the above case in the remission of a part of a sentence passed by the Judge of the Supreme Court without consulting the Judge who tried the case. If such a course of proceeding is to be pursued, we may well say " Our Judges will become like their wigs on blocks in a barber's window—more for show than use." Feeling for one that these things should not be suffered to pass without notice, I have not hesitated to express my opinion upon them. Yours, &c, SENEX ALBUS.