THE NECESSITY OF JUDICIAL CHANGES.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 2, Issue 157, 12 May 1879, Page 2

THE NECESSITY OF JUDICIAL CHANGES.

(From the Chronicle.)

The public and the legal profession on the West Coast of the Middle Island are just now much exercised respecting the removal of the Resident Magistrate at Greymouth to another part of the coast. It seems that there is a strong party violently opposed to the removal of this gentleman from among them. What the motives of these people may be ive do not pretend to say. ifo doubt they have good reasons of their own, whatever may be the nature of them, for the action tliey are taking in the matter. We can well imagine what theif views in such a case may possibly be, for unluckily such cases are, in New Zealand, by no means confined to the West Coast. Magistrates and judges of all sorts do curiously get to be loved "not wisely but too well" by certain people in the places where they sit in the gate to dispense justice. But our present object is to draw attention to a petition from the lawyers on the Coast arising out of this particular case, and forwarded through Sir A. E. Guineas to the Minister of Justice. This document has an interest far transcending the immediate interest of the case which has given rise to it. It is signed by the President of the District Law Society, Hokitika, and the YicePresidcnt of the District Law Society, Greymouth, and numerous other members of the profession on the West Coast. The petition states: —" We fully approve the action of the Government in changing the Resident Magistrates and Wardens, and think throughout the Colony, and particularly in the more populated districts, there should bo adopted the principal of periodical changes and removal of those ollicers, and that such changes should be made every three years at least. That we believe such a principle is calculated to secure the administration of justice free from local or personal influence, We would therefore urge the Government most strongly to adhere to the proposed changes, and not to allow itself to be influenced by local pressure brought to bear by private friends or individuals." We most heartily and sincerely endorse the prayer of the petitioners, and we think it reflects very great credit on the piactioners who have signed it, just as it reflects credit also on the Government which has had the courage to grapplo with this crying evil. The petition has, we think, one fault; it does not co far enough. The. principle which it enunciates applies with every whit as much force to the Supreme Court Judges as to inferior Judges and Magistrates or Wardens. Public opinion will endorse this statement, and moreover, this same principle was some years back affirmed by the House of Representatives, and even acted upon by the Government of the day in changing the sphere of duty of these Judges. We are bold to say that such is the peculiarity, the characteristic vices, and such the dangers of the plan of judicature which we now live under that unless some other correcting principle can be applied it will be necessary to insist that no Judge of the Supreme Court or any other Court shall be allowed for more than'two or at most three years in the same place, We shall immediately, of course, be assailed with the stupid cry of the hardship which this would inflict upon the Judges. The answer is simple and conclusive, for it is furnished by the law itself—Salmpopulisupnma lex,—the public interest and the public safety are, in the eye of the law, superior to the interest, the comfort, the feelings, and even to the safety of any manor set of men whosoever they maybe, 'lf, we say,the growing, mounting curse of cliquism and favoritism in matters judicial cannot be abated in any other way, then wo must without fail, and also without remorse, insist that the interests of public justice, morality, truth and-right shall not be endangered by any tenderness for the feelings or the interests, or the susceptibilities of individuals, In truth these observations apply with far greater force to the cise of our highest Judges than to the interior Judges, and the reason is that the official tenure of the

former, that is, on good behaviour, renders them practically irremovable, whereas if the latter misbehave they can easily bo removed, We shall never advocate tho change of the official tenure of the Judges of the Supreme Court, for we think these gentlemen ought to be independent of any executive Government, But while this tenure subsists, if tho men holding office by it cannot be brought under the indirect, but no less valuable and efficient, checks of a properly constituted Bar and common residence in one centre, then there is nothing for it but to insist upon a regular periodical change of residence every two or, at the most, every threo years. This question is far too serious and far-reaching in its importance to the most vital interests of tho community to be shirked and.let slide, as the phrase it. It can only slide in one direction, that is, down, from bad 'to worse. We ; . hope that in the coming session of Parliai® something will be done to put this matter on a better footing than it is now j in fact, it is clear something must be done.