The Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1888. THE VACANT JUDGESHIP.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1824, 4 December 1888, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1888. THE VACANT JUDGESHIP.

The appointment of a judge to fill the vacancy caused by the death of the late Mr Justice Johnston has not yet been made, but the general impression is that Judge Ward will not receive it. Nothing the present Q-overnment would do could surprise us. They are capable of any meanness; but we must say that if Judge Ward is overlooked in the matter of this appointment it will prove the crowning disgrace of the present Government. As a lawyer, Judge Ward has no superior—and few equals—in New Zealand; and as a judge, nothing can be said against him. He has been a judge in the District Court of this colony for the last 15 or 20 years, and his record is unblemished so far as the impartial discharge of his duties is concerned. About two years ago, he was temporarily appointed a judge of the Supreme Court during the absence of Judge Gillies in England, and when leaving Auckland the bar of that city met in his Court and gave expression in very forcible speeches

to the high esteem in which they held him during the twelve months that he administered justice in that district. When Judge Gillies resumed his duties Judge Johnston obtained twelve months’ leave of absence, and Judge Ward was again temporarily appointed to fill his place until he returned. Judge Johnston died, and thus the vacancy occurred. This happened over twelve months ago. Judge Ward has been performing the duties since, and now if he is put back to the District Court, and someone else appointed to the position he has honorably and satisfactorily filled, it will be the most perfidious action a Government has ever been guilty of. Judge Ward’s lack of legal knowledge cannot be advanced as a bar to his appointment by his bitterest opponents. That he standi in the first rank of New Zealand lawyers is admitted by friends and foes. Knowledge of law is an indispensible qualification for a judge, and that he possesses—-and whenever hisjudgments have been tested in the Appeal Court they have, we believe, without exception been upheld. What, then, can be the objection to his permanent appointment? If there is anything else which unfits him for the position, then the same reason must apply to his appointment in the District Court. Greater ability and acumen is all that we can expect in a Supreme Court judge more' than’in a District Court judge. In all other respects the necessary qualifications ought to be equal—for a partial, dishonest judge is as odious and objectionable a creature on the District Court Bench as on that of the Supreme Court. We have had 15 or 20 years’ of experience of Judge Ward’s conduct on the Bench of the District Court, and not a breath has been beard to his disadvantage Our profession has given us exceptional opportunities of forming an opinion on the subject, and we have no hesitation in saying that nowhere in New Zealand is there a Court conducted with greater decorum or a more thorough appreciation of the judicial dignity than that over wh’ch Judge Ward presides. In one word, Judge Ward is fit to be a judge of the Supreme Court if he is fit to be a judge of the District Court, and no amount of sophistry can gainsay that one simple assertion. It was raised as an objection that the appointment would not be popular with the bar. This certainly is a lame excuse, and was given no doubt on the strength of the aphorism that some excuse is better than none at all Popularity amongst lawyers is a new qualification for a judge, and the inventor of the excuse must have been very hard pushed when he gave such a ridiculous one. It came, we believe, from Ministerial lips, and gives an indication of the senility of some of our governors, At any rate, it came from a source sufficiently authoritative to attract attention. The lawyers of Christchurch —the district to which the appointment is to be made —met, , and repudiated the assertion that they harbored any such feelings towards Judge Ward. If Judge Ward is known anywhere he is known in Canterbury, and we honestly believe that there are few, if any, in the provincial district who would not like to see him appointed, and who will not be indignant and disgusted if he is overlooked.

We have been astonished to notice that the Dimedin Herald—a journal which professes Radical principles, and thorough appreciation of justice and fair play to all—is antagonistic to Judge Ward’s appointment. The grounds of the Herald’s objections are: that the temporary appointment gives him no right to a permanent one, and that it is quite legitimate for the present Government to give the position to one of their own party. We have never heard that Judge Ward belonged to any political party. The position he has occupied precluded the possibility of it being known, for he could not consistently with being a judge interfere in politics. And if a temporary appointment gives him no actual right, does it not give him a moral right ? Has he not a better right to it by virtue of his length of service as a District Court judge than some lawyer who happened to have been a politician at some time or another ? The fact that there is an aspirant to the position in Dunedin may possibly explain the reason why the Herald advanced such imbecile objections. The Canterbury papers are unanimously in favor of Judge Wal’d, and they know most about him, and they are most interested in the appointment. Another reason why Judge Ward ought to be appointed is that if he is not it will necessitate the removal of one of the District Court judges. By a special Act of Parliament Judge Ward is entitled to his District Court judgeship still, and someone must leave to make room for him. The judge that is deprived of office must of course get compensation, and thus the country will be put to additional expense. Thus, whatever way the appointment may be looked at, there is every reason why Judge Ward should receive it, and none against him; and if he is denied his just right, then we shall not hesitate to characterise the transaction as a piece of infamous jobbery. Want of cohesion amongst Ministers can alone explain the delay that has taken place in making the appointment; it is evident that Ministers themselves are | at six and sevens over it. We can I easily understand this. With all the j

Premier’s faults we do not think he could be forced very readily into the perpetration of such an act of injustice as Lo pass Judge Ward over, hut he has unscrupulous associates -v ho are capable of it, and doubtless he is holding out in the hope that one day they will get into a more reasonable frame of mind. We sincerely trust that, no less for his own credit than for the sake of seeing justice done, he will not sully his administration by doing such a cruel wrong. The public memory is certainly very short, but this is a matter of sufficient importance to he remembered, and we can safely say that it will not be readily forgotten if the decision is adverse to Judge Ward.