Untitled

Waikato Argus, Volume I, Issue 22, 29 August 1896, Page 2

Mil MASSKY. asked a question in tho House on Wednesday, as to whether the Government had at any time instructed the District Land Registrar to refuse to register the title deeds of two blocks ef land, Nos. 1 and 2, Maungatautari, and if so why ? Mil M.cJCISN/JK said as the question had been asked lie would expose a native land job. Tie, therefore, started to charge Sir James Fergtisson, late Governor of the colony, of having been a party to the job. We do not purpose to discuss the merits of the case, for the reason that they arc not known to us. This much is clear, the Government did instruct the Registrar not to register the title to these blocks. Ap-

plication was in consequence made to the Supreme Court, to order the registration. This Mu Justice Conolly did. The Government appealed, and the case was reviewed by the Appeal Court in Wellington, which decided that the title must be registered, and as Mu McKenzie. puts it, made some very nasty remarks to the effect that they thought vexations restrictions wore put in the way of this title being registered. Mu McKenzie is reported to have added, “ Judge Denniston, one of those judges and high-minded gentlemen appealed to, said, in the course of his remarks, that a judicial officer should not be influenced in any action by what took place in The Judge of the Supreme Court set aside' a recommendation made by the coin- 1 mitteo of that House when some person was interested who belonged to a certain class *of people in this colony.” This can only be interpreted as an accusation of impurity against throe of the Judges of the Supreme Court. We believe that we are writing the truth when we state that Messrs Seddon”' and McKenzie are the first public men who have imputed wrong motives to Judges cf the Supremo Court. But until their advent to power a despotism had never before been established. They have subordinated Paliument and the officials in every department to their will, and are smarting under the restriction which the (Supreme Court places upon their actions. The people do not and will not believe them, and the two Ministers have, not paraded any facts which would justify them in doing so. To such a pass have we arrived that were, it not for the Supreme Court the people of New Zealand would very’ soon have no liberties to pride" themselves upon'. Such conduct on the patt of Mihlstefs disgraces Parliament, 'and through. Parliament disgraccs-ihe wholepojpilation. i ,