NEW TRAIN ARRANGEMENTS. THE RAWSON ENQUIRY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1880, 18 April 1889, Page 3

NEW TRAIN ARRANGEMENTS.

THE RAWSON ENQUIRY.

The new train arrangements, although giving satisfaction north of Ashburton, meet with general disfavor from the settlers between Ashburton and Timaru. Mr Arthur Rhodes, M.H.R., (says the Press) has received a large number of letters from gentlemen in South Canterbury, requesting him to do what he can to have some alteration effected. Mr Rhodes has communicated with the Commissioners, and a reply has been received, from which we learn —That the morning train will continue to leave Orari at 8.45 a.m. daily, stopping at all stations, arriving at Timaru as now at 9.45, and returning from Timaru in the evening as at present. The express north and south will stop at Grari and Temuka, and in addition on three days a week, viz., Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, a train will leave Timaru at noon, returning to Timaru about 8 p.m., stopping at all stations. The Commissioners are sure, the telegram adds, that under the altered arrangements > the Geraldine and Temuka districts will be better served than at present. No doubt tue Commissioners will give every consideration to any representations which may be made to them, as their only object, we understand, is to facilitate tho traffic all along the line. It may be explained that the express will not only stop at Ashburton and Timaru on the return ''journey South, hut also at Rakaia, Rangitata, Orari, and Temuka. The express from the South will stop on its northern journey at Temuka and Orari, and will drop passengers from the south of Ashburton at stations between Ashburton and Christchurch.

Welwoton, Aptil 16. The report of the Commission of Enquiry in the charges brought against Jndge Rawson was made public this evening. It occupies forty pages of fno!soap ; and deals exhaustively with the allegations of corruption, partiality, and other charges levelled at Mr Rawson. The Commissioners, Messrs T. S. Reid and T. M. Haultain, assert that the evidence brought forth wholly failed to justify the charges. They say “ As already stated in another part of this report, it is to be understood that we only regard the evidence adduced ns bearing on the charges before us. We do not say that all the decisions given by Mr Rawson were in accordance with law, because, as a matter of fact, an appeal was made from one of these decisions to the Supreme Court, and the appeal was allowed ; but wo do say that the proceedings taken before him were regular, and where he decided be did so in legitimate exercise of his judicial discretion, and therefore, we say, there was no proof whatever of partiality or other misconduct.”

In concluding tbs report the Commissioners say:— “Tbe tolal number of persons who deemed themselves aggrieved was nine. Of these, three complainants (Staile, Syme, and Blackburn, of Feilcling) did not appear; Byre and Macgregor did not proceed with their charges, and Joshua Jones withdrew his case after it had been partially heard. There, therefore, only remained three individuals. These charges were fully heard to completion. Wo need not remark that the experience of all judicial tribunals is that persons against whom decisions are given are apt to feel irritated, and often allege improper motives for the action of the deciding authority. In the cases investigated before as there seems to have been in the minds of tbe complainants an unreasoning desire to impute the decisions against them Ip judicial misconduct on the part of Mr Rawson. Trivial circumstances in the coarse of legal proceedings have been laid hold of and magnified into matters of importance ; a chance remark uttered by the presiding Judge, or the fact that counsel loft the Court by the some door ns the Judge, or had occasion to see him in his room, or some like circumstances ; or that ho had exercised a judicial discretion contrary to tbe wishes or interests of a complainant, have been construed into the acts of misconduct and partiality, which .have given rise to the charges heard before us. Many of tbe charges may have arisen from ignorance of legal procedure and the rules ot law which guided the Judge, but in some of them we think there has been a rvcklessuess exhibited in die nature and terms of the allegations put forward, which calls for emphatic condemnation. Having regard to the nature of the duly entrusted to us, and also having regard to the position in which Mr Rawson has been placed, wo thought it desirable that, although painful to him, it was expedient opportunity should be given to have all the complaints fully investigated, and the resalt is that we deem ourselves quite justified in declaring that in all the cases heard before us Mr Rawson must be acquitted of judicial wrongdoing or misbehavior.”

The Commissioners state they would have ordered the complainants to pay costs had they the power of ascertaining the amount of costs incurred and means wore provided for enforcing them.