Cromwell Argus, AND NORTHERN GOLD-FIELDS GAZETTE. CROMWELL: TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1872.

Cromwell Argus, Volume III, Issue 138, 2 July 1872, Page 4

Cromwell Argus, AND NORTHERN GOLD-FIELDS GAZETTE. CROMWELL: TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1872.

The Municipal Council have again moved in the mutter of Water Supply for the town, and now invite tenders "for the construction of a reservoir and laying of pipes for the Cromwell Corporation Water Works." In other words, they are about to expend a portion of the municipal funds in the excavation of a sandpit, and in laving a line of piping in place of the open ditch now used for conveying water from one end of the town to "the other. The contrivance grandiloquently styled a reservoir is to he constructed, we believe, somewhere on the low terrace behind the residence of Mr Williams, and just beyond the undulating sandy waste which extends from Mr Hayes's house northward to Mr Goodger's stockyard. We do not know, nor care to inquire, what quantity of water the proposed reservoir is estimated to contain ; but of this we may be certain,—the larger its dimensions, the more costly will it be for the ratepayers. The reservoir and the ill-contrived scheme of which it is to form a part, will absorb more money than the Council will be able to raise during the next twenty years; and after all the scheme can never be made efficient for the purpose it is intended to serve. For these reasons :—The supply of water will always be uncertain ; the quality, instead of improving, will in all probability deteriorate in proportion to the increase of population, and will eventually become so

bad as to be utterly unfit for use. It is even now quite a common occurrence to hear of the carcases of sheep, cattle, or dogs lying for weeks in the water-course, —to say nothing of the thousand-and one nameless abominations that are wafted into the race by every breeze that blows. For all practical purposes the force of the water supplied from the proposed reservoir will be utterly useless, especially as regards the extinction of fires ; and on the level of the upper terrace (say at Emiiscort street), we are confident that it will be impossible to command sufficient pressure to drive the machinery of an eight-day clock. In the nume of common sense we piotest against the whole scheme, and urge upon the ratepayers to make a firm stand against its further development. Within a few weeks the ratepayers will have the opportunity of selecting or rejecting candidates for the Mayoralty and for two vacant Councillorships. We counsel them to choose as their municipal representatives men possessed of sufficient courage and common sense to oppose and overthrow the abortion known as the Corporation Water Works Soheme. It is not yet too late. And, let us add, do not. accept anything short of a distinct pledge from a. y candidate on the subject.

During the pasi few years our readers have no doubt frequently seen paragraphs in various newspapers relating to the case of Mr Henry Ssiythies ; but as they have most probably gleaned but an imperfect knowledge of the facts, the conclusions arrived at by them (if any) are more likely to be incorrect than otherwise. We will therefore endeavour, so far as our limited j spice will permit, to furnish our readers' with such data as will enable them to form u correct opinion upon the subject. We have before us a pamphlet of 28 pages, published under the authority of the j New Zealand Law Society, ami c ait lining i a report of the case just heard by the Appeal Court at Wellington. We have also a report of the proceedings of the General Assembly in connection with Mr Smytiues' case during last session. From these documents our fuels will be taken. In the year 1810 Mr S.mypiiies wis in; practice as a solicitor at Aylesburv, England, and whilst so practising, was convicted of a misdemeanour, upon what has! since turned cut to be admittedly false evidence. Eirly in 1851 Mr Smytiues emigrated to Auckland, and upon arrival he applied to the then Chief Justice (Sin W. Martin) fur admission to practise his profession, stating at the same time the f icts as to his co iviction previously. Sir W. Martin advised him to wait a fewyears, and he accordingly did so. In I 1855, he agaia applied to the Chief Jus-. ti.-e. The applicition was referred to the! j Judges sitting in conference, who ordered I Mr Smytiues to produce more evidence as t> his case; and finally, having satisfied the Judges, he was admitted to practice in January, lSGii. In that same year, the L '..isla'.mv, without, giving any notice to the Judges or to Ml' S.UYTUIES, passed an Act which annulled his admission, and rendered him liable to a penalty of .£SOO a day (at least) for practising. ' In 18G8 Mr Smytiues was lined under this Act, and prohibited from practice. Since then, he has been constantly struggling to show, either that he was not liable to the Act ef 18G0, or that, if he was liable, the Act was unjust, (being ex pod facto.J and ought to be repealed. The House of Representatives, last session, after having heard Mr Smytiues.— and counsel for the Law Society, in opposition to him, — ilmost unanimously passed a Bill for his readmission. The Legislative Council, however, without hearing Mr Smytiues, altered this Bill so as to refer the matter again to the Judges. The principal clauses are to the effect that the Judges may restore Mr Smytiues to practice if he shall satisfy them either—(l) that there are circumstances in his case, not adduced at his trial in England, which, if adduced, would in their opinion have influenced the jury to find a verdict of "not guilty"; or (2), that the circumstances of his cise do not imply such moral turpitude as to unfit him for the exercise of his profession. A nrl, if in either of these cases he shall satisfy the Judges, Mr Smythies is further required to show that since his conviction, and up to the time of his application, he has pursued a course of upright conduct. Mr Smytiues' application under this Act was heard before the five Judges at Wellington last month. Mr Smytiues was opposed by the Attorney-General and several other barristers. Several days were occupied in the argument, and on the 17th June judgment was delivered against the applicant. Upon the second ground, the Court decided in favour ef the petitioner : that is,—they were of opinion that the

alleged offence in England was of ,fl very harmless character that it ou4« to prevent him practising as a New Zealand. They even doubt as to whether it was an all. _ And they say, " the petitioner 9 if his conduct in the meantime had lB 1 reproachable, be properly allowed to M to practice." The word " irreproachable," we fiJB reference to the Blue Books, was M out of the Act during a took place between the two Houses 2 the Bill: we presume because they t]JB the terra too stringent. And yet, stS to say, the Judges have interpreted clause as if the word had remained i n l great number of charges were hy'M against Mr SmYTHIES by Mr MacasseH which no notice appears to have 1 given previous to the sitting of the CM MrSllYTfliES urged—we think withß son—that notice of them ought to ■ been given to him before he left DIIJ where all his papers were,—in which ■ he would have been able to answer M completely. However, the Judges si " We may say at once that these chal would not in our judgment, either J rately or together, have been sufficient justify the Court in striking Mr Smyth off the rolls, or probably even i n ing him from practice.'" But upon whole they consider that his conduct " deserving of censure," and therefore tl cannot admit him, under the Act of IS [t thus appears that the Judges are n n | mously of opinion that Mr Smythies 1 done nothing to disentitle him to practl but yet, under the peculiar leuisllti which has been enacted, they can -Jivej] no relief. We think, therefore, that t law ought to be amended at once. \ understand that a petition is being mini ously signed in different parts of the Pi jvince, praying the Legislature to pj I Bill to enable Mr Smyth: ks to rJ | practice. We trust the petition will' 'signed by every parson in this district.