The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, MARCH 22, 1890. SCANDALOUS JOBBERY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2023, 22 March 1890, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, MARCH 22, 1890. SCANDALOUS JOBBERY.

The appointment of Mr Edwards as a Supernumerary Supreme Court Judge and Commissioner t© settle the Native lauds titles is a most extraordinary affair. It is certainly a Job of a very pronounced type, and in the face of all the noise that has been made about retrenchment it is the worst kind of extravagance. For years we have been accustomed to hear a great deal said about “ wiping out ” the Native Office altogether. This was a part of the proposed retrenchment, but since the present Ministry have been in power they have appointed at least two Judges of the Native Lands Court, and now Mr Edwards is in addition to this placed in the position of Commissioner at a salary of £ISOO a year. Some of the present Judges of the Native Lands Court are able lawyers, and they are in every way as competent to deal with the work Mr Edwards will have to consider as he is ; they are paid only about half his salary, and it is simply outrageous jobbery to place him over their heads. We do not know Mr Edwards further than that he is a Wellington lawyer, and has always been a great supporter of the Atkinson regime , and no doubt the billet has simply been made for him as a reward for past services. Admitting, for argument’s sake, that a necessity exists for appointing another Judge of the Native Lands Court, why has not that been done in the ordinary way and at the usual salary paid to such officers ? A saving of about £750 a year might thus have been effected. Mr Edwards will have ho duties to discharge which could not have been as ably, if not more ably, fulfilled by the other Judges, whose long experience has given them special knowledge of Native laws. That it is a corrupt and shameless appointment is, therefore, patent to all, and it may help to enlighten those who have placed such implicit faith in the sincerity of the present Ministry. This is the sort of economy our retrenchment Ministry is practising, and if it is not enough to open the eyes of their admirers it ought to be.

Unwarrantable and extravagant as the appointment of Mr Edwards as Native Titles Commissioner is, it is certainly as nothing compared with his elevation to the Supreme Court Bench, As the Lyttelton Times has pointed out, it is both “illegal and unconstitutional.” The law only provides for the appointment of five Supreme Court Judges, and there is no provision for paying the salary of the sixth Judge. In the face of this, and of the fact that no vacancy has occurred, and is not likely to occur for some time, on the Supreme Court Bench, the appointment is obviously an outrageous violation of the law. lit is true that Judge Eichmond is about to take a holiday, in order to visit the Old Country, and will be absent for 12 months. Judge Edwards will doubtless take his place, but then the question arises, How will he attend to both the Supreme Court and Native affairs P It is evident that he cannot do it, and that he must first of all discharge the duties of the Supreme Court. This is sufficient to show us that the necessity for his appointment as Native Titles Commissioner is not of a pressing nature, and could very well have waited at least for the next 12 months. At any rate, it will have to

wait, for Judge Edwards cannot attend to it in the absence of Judge Richmond. Then why has the appointment been made F And why has he been appointed permanently as a Judge when no vacancy has occurred, and when he is only required to fill the position temporarily ? On all previous occasions temporary appointments have been made to fill the places of Judges absent on leave. Judge Ward was temporarily apppinted during the absence of Judge Gillies in Auckland and Judge Johnston in Christchurch, but instead of following this constitutional course Judge Edwards has been appointed permanently, and the office of Native Titles Commissioner has been made for him, so that he shall have something to do when Judge Richmond returns. We have no hesitation in saying that this appointment has been made purposely and deliberately to provide against the possibility of Judge Ward ever reachingthe Supreme Court Bench. The present Government feel that it is quite possible they may be turned out of office next election, and they know also that if a vacancy occurred their successors could not possibly be so dead to all sense of justice as to pass over the claims of Judge Ward. To provide against the possibility of his appointment this scheme has been devised. Judge Edwards has been permanently appointed, and if a vacancy occurs he will step into it in spite of any Ministry. This all comes of the Ward-Hislop dispute. he appointment has been deliberately made to wreak vengeance on the Judge, and a very clever move it is. Nevertheless it is one of the most shameless pieces of jobbery a Ministry has ever been guilty of, and we would not be surprised if we heard a great deal more about it. The Wellington Press says that, recognising the illegality of the appointment, the Chief Justice has refused to swear in Judge Edwards. The correspondent of the Christchurch Press *says this is not true, and that Judge Edwards has been sworn in. There is never smoke without fire, and consequently we are inclined to think that the Chief Justice must have objected to the appointment, but that the Ministry forced him to yield. But the question will yet come up in Parliament. The salary of Judge Edwards will have to be passed like any other item on the Estimates, and when it comes before the House the whole question will be raised. If Parliament does its duty it will strike it out, and mark their disapprobation of such scandalous conduct.