The Globe. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1876.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 726, 17 October 1876, Page 2

The Globe. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1876.

It can scarcely be said that the little tragic scene which terminated so tamely last week in the Supreme Court at Wellington, when the Chief Justice of the colony on the one hand, and the well known barrister, Mr. George Elliot Barton, on the other, were the principal actors, has done much towards raising the dignity of the Bench in public estimation. We are not prepared to take Mr. Barton’s part, far from it. But in what good effects to any of the parties concerned, viz : the public, the Bar, or the Bench, has this ebullition of professional feeling resulted ? The causus belli arose through Mr. Barton having been t-harply rebuked by the Judge for being a few minutes late in Court, foolishly sending him a copy of a letter ho had written to the Government complaining of the Chief Justice’s systematic bias against him. The letter itself was certainly an unwise proceeding, injudicious, and in questionable taste ; but furnishing his Honor with a copy of it, although done probably as a matter of courtesy, was silly in the extreme. It simply brought the barrister within the penal clutches of the Judge to whose Court he belonged, and was clearly, as a matter of dry law, an overt act of contempt. When the offending gentleman was, in due course of time, | brought face to face with the outraged | Chief Justice, the so called arguments which the Judge on his side would designate as explanations, and Mr. Barton on the other as vindications uf his conduct, led to no other result than showing that his Honor had certainly made a mountain of a mole hill. The lawyer had his say, and that sharply too, and did not apologise. When appearing ultimately “ to re- “ ceive sentence,” he had to submit to a stern lecture, had the gravity of his offence well driven home to mind, told to what dreadful penalties he had rendered himself amenable, and —was let off scot free. Of course the complaint made to the Government will | still be followed up in the usual way, ; no one caring much with what results; ’ but here remains the fact that nothing * new whatever has been gained by those 5 wonderful proceedings. The Bar as | well as the Bench are as wise as they were before, the Bench perhaps less so, inasmuch as the reports of the arguments show that the nice points of law involved during the fruitless attempts of Mr. Prendergast and Mr. Barton to join issues, opened out unlimited ground of a debateable nature. The public “ sees little wool, I “ but hears a great cry,” and some I people may think it strange that I action should have been taken by the | Judge before the Government had I had time to deal with rash Mr. Bars’ ton’s complaint, as now his case—i whatever it may be—may run a risk of ! being prejudiced.

The Upper House is apparently not to assist the other branch of the Legislature in their attempt to 'cpeal the States Forest Act, 1874, and have accordingly thrown out the Mates Forest Eepeal Bill, which had passed the Lower House by a large majority. As yet we have not been it formed of the motives which induced toe “ Lords” to consign the Bill to oblivion. Our readers will remember that the New Zealand States Forest Act, 1874, was introduced by Sir Julius Vogel, in an able speech, in which he reviewed at great length the efforts which were being made in other countries in the same direction. There were, however, some sturdy opponents to the scheme, mainly composed of the various Superintendents, who viewed with alarm the provisions of the Act inflicting a considerable charge upon the Provincial landed estates. Mr. Fitzherbert, the present Speaker, was the leading spirit of that Opposition and it 1 was owing to his action on that occas’Pßj that the abolition measures wV?ve introduced earlier than would hove been the case. The Bill, however, became law. The most important feature of the measure was that a sum of £10,003 per annum was to be set aside every year for the purposes of

the Act, and certain reserves of land also made. Unfortunately a great mistake was committed by the Government in introducing Captain Walker from India at a large salary to give fee colony the benefit of his forestry experience, while an old settler, Mr. Kirk, was at the same time appointed to teach that gallant officer the names, habits, and uses of the various New Zealand trees. This blunder on the part of the Government appears to have induced the present House of Representatives to regard the Bill with distrust, and notwithstanding the appeal of Ministers, who wished to have it amended only, they passed the repealing Bill, which the “ Lords” have just thrown| out. The Act of 1874 will therefore remain in force, and under its provisions the Colonial Treasurer is instructed to pay to a separate account the sum of £IO,OOO a year, for the purposes of the Act. We shall be curious to see how the Lower House will act under the circumstances. Will they stand quietly aside, and permit this attempt to curtail the expenditure to be negatived by the nominated branch of the Legislature without entering a strong protest ?