HANDSOME INCOMES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2012, 25 February 1890, Page 1

HANDSOME INCOMES.

An idea of money made by legal practitioners, and of the salaries paid to high Government officials in Victoria will be gathered from the following paragraph which appeared in the Melbourne Age : Mr Justice Hodges, who is acting temporasily as a Supreme Court Judge, during the absence on leave of Mr Justice Webb, has, after full consideration, accepted the permanent seat on the bench rendered vacant by the death of Mr Justice Kerferd. Whilst accepting the seat, Mr Justice Hodges held the view that the salary attached to the position, namely £3,000 per annum is very inadequate, and his acceptance of the position involves large pecuniary sacrifice on his part. When the salaries of the Supreme Court were fixed at £3,000 some years ago, the best incomes derived from the bar did not exceed £3,500. Now, however, the income of several of the chief juniors is equal to that amount, whilst those of some ©f the leading counsel reach £IO,OOO a year. It is calculated that during the year prior to that in which Mr Hodges accepted the temporary appointment on the Supreme Court bench his income was £7,500, and it is almost certain that if Mr Hood were to go on the bench and Mr Hodges continue practice, the latter gentleman would make at least £IO,OOO a year. This iB borne out by the statement] made on good authority, that by the elevation of Mr Hodges to the Supreme Court bench the income of Mr Hood increased to £9OOO. It should be stated that Mr Justice Fellows received a salary of £3500 a year, and that is the amount of the salary received by the present Chief Justice. It is held to be very anomalous that the dignified office of Chief Justice should only have attached to it a salary equal to the income of some junior members of the bar. It is on these and other grounds that Mr Hodges considers £3OOO a year inadequate remuneration for a Supreme Court judge. Particularly it is held to be inconsistent with the idea on which the Constitution Act was based that any person in the service of the Government should receive a higher salary than the Chief Justice. A section in that Act gives the latter precedence of all persons, excepting the Lieutenant-Governor, and it is contended that precedence in position should carry a corresponding lead in salary. The principle has been broken in the case of the chairman of the Railway Commissioners, who now receives £4OOO per annum, or £SOO I more than Mr Chief Justice Higinbotham.