THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, JUNE 3, 1893. THE JUDGE AND THE MINISTER.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2511, 3 June 1893, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, JUNE 3, 1893. THE JUDGE AND THE MINISTER.

Some of the old Land Boards are still antagonistic to the policy of the present Minister of Lands, and place all the impedements they can in his way. The Taranaki Land Board is an example ; it is composed of the old anti-Liberals, and the result is that the Minister finds it no easy matter to administer the law in that district. Until recently dummyism was running rampant there, but the Land Board took no cognisance of it, and at last the matter came to Mr McKenzies ears, through various outside sources. In his recent speech Mr McKenzie said that in the communications he had received on the subject, “it was affirmed that serious breaches of the Land Act were committed by a ring of speculators; iu fact, the evil had become so notorious, that anyone applying to purchase land in the Taranaki district invariably found himself ousted by that very ring.” There can be no doubt that this is true, for there is in Temuka at the present time a man who has returned from Taranaki, and he corroborates what Mr McKeuzie has said. When Mr McKenzie assured himself that this was the existing state of things in Taranaki he ordered the auditor, Mr O’Hara Smith, to investigate the matter, and| he succeeded in detecting some glaring cases of dummyism. Mr McKenzie, submitted the evidence to the law officers of the Crown, and they advised that it was “ his bounden duty to take action at once.” The case came before Judge Connolly in New Plymouth, and it was clearly proved, but the Judge in addressing the jury said, “ I say this : We hear a great deal of talk about the policy of the Government, as if the Governmeut were most beneficent, but if the Government adopt that plan of sending a mau down as auditor, and, in fact, employing him as a private detective, it is most discreditable to all parties.” According to Judge Connolly therefore, “ it is discreditable ” for the Government to detect crime for breaking the law, is a crime. This is a most outrageous thing for a judge to say, but his subsequent action was worse still. The jury found the dummy guilty, but the judge only sentenced him to the rising of the court, so that he was allowed to go scot free. In his speech to his constituents, Mr McKenzie complained of the action of the judge, for having “ acted as an apologist, an advocate and a special pleader for dummyism.” On this, the Auckland Herald speaks as follows: “ We confess having read with deep regret Mr McKenzie’s rash and impolitic attack upon Mr Justice Conelly iu his judicial capacity as Jndge of the Supreme Court. His language transcended the ordinary bounds of legitimate comment in a most wanton and outrageous manner. For a Minister of the Crown on a public platform to accuse one of Her Majesty’s Judges of being actuated by political bias ia the administration of the duties in his . • , '“ice, and of acting as an apologist, advocate, an" pleader for lawbreakers, is a proceeding so extraordinary as only to be justifided on the ground Cl immediate public safety. But no such ground exists: the Judges are amenable to Parliament, which, in these days of the doctrine of ‘the right colour 5 have muohoause to be thankful for, and had Mr * --mb any good reason for impeaching ; •vnd impartiality of Mr' the intcynu., duty <fo SO JP Justice Conolly, it was .... •>, a Parliament, which alone can ueiu ' ' his charges, and where the maligned anu abu-ed Judge could have at least a defence made for him by his friends.” We did not think that a man could have been found in New Zealand who would stand up to defend Judge Connolly. First of all the Judge sneers at the Government when he says “ as if the Government were most beneficeut,” and then he says “it is discreditable” to the Governmeut to have detected a crime which had been proved by evidence laid before him, while after the jury had found the criminal guilty, he allowed him to go scot free. Judge Connolly has only been on the Bench two or three years ; before that he was Minister of Justice iu several Tory Ministries, and it is plain that he carried his political prejudices with him, and has stuck to them since. The doctrine he has laid down is that the Government should not employ detectives to discover crimes. He possibly does not regard dummyism as a crime; but it is a breach of the law; and it is a crime to break the ; law. We notice that the Herald thinks this ought to be discussed in Parliament, ; instead of the platform. We shall be I surprised if Parliament does not take ( cognisance of such outrageous conduct as 1 this. Every one must, of course, support the independence of the Supreme Court; that is the bulwark of our liberties, but i the Supreme Court must not be per- < mitted to nullify Acts of Parliament, or j comment upon the actions of Her j Majesty’s Government, in a manner j calcutated to bring them into ridicule and contempt. Mr Scobie McKeuzie in , his wildest rhetorical flights could hardly j have spoken in a more partizan spirit than , Judge Connolly did, and Parliament ] ought to take cognisance of it. Parlia- £ meut is Judge Connolly’s master, it is x above all eartlhy power, but it will not c assert its rights it it permits partisanship, i

such as that exhibited by Judge Connolly to exist on the Supreme Court Bench. Even the Otago Daily Times, a Conservative organ,says:—

“ If we take Mr M’Kenzie’s own estimate of his work as a land administrator—and there is nob much evidence of exaggeration in the speech he has just delivered—it must on the whole be pronounced fairly successful. Nor do we think that the public will greatly blame him for the severe rebuke which he administered to Mr Justice Connolly. That gentleman must either have have lost his head or been laboring under some strange misapprehension when he rated the Government for employing members of the Civil Service as ‘ detectives.’ ”

We do not think that many will sympathise with Judge Connolly in this instance. When the Otago Daily Times, which is always opposed to Mr McKenzie, tells Judge Connolly he lost head we may be sure he was guilty of a very serious wrong.

POLICE STUPIDITY, The pulling down of the Union Jack in Belfast on the occasion of Lord Salisbury’s visit is a most extraordiuary instance of police stupidity. The Union Jack, of course, is no party emblem ; it is merely the emblem of the nation, and is just as much Mr Gladstone’s as Lord Salisbury’s. We can understand how the police made the mistake of polling it down. It was hoisted, no doubt, as an emblem of the unity of the Empire by those who are opposed to Homo Rule, and as the British Government happened to be on the other side just now the policeman thought it was a party emblem, and consequently opposed to the Government. Had it been pulled down by Home Rulers we should never have heard the end of it. We should have been told itj meant that the Irish were ready to pull it down any moment, but it having been pulled down by the police changes the political aspect of the matter altogether. One thing the incident makes clear, and it is that the Irish .policeman is no respecter of persons. He has fought hard and successfully for Mr Balfour when perpetrating the most terrible outrages in Ireland, but the Irish policeman is just as ready to fight on the other side now. This gives the people of Ireland security that law and order will be preserved under any set of masters. The Royal Irish Constabulary are the finest body of men in the whole world, and no trouble will ever arise iu that country with which they would be unable to cope. The British soldier is, just like the Irish Constabulary, ready to obey the commands of their officers, whatever the duty may be; so it is absolute foolishness for any one section of the community to threaten civil war under such circumstances.