592
seems to me is that the Governor should never appoint the
Attorney General to act as Chief Justice or an officer
who has acted as Attorney General to act as Puisne Judge.
The latter case very rarely occurs, but the Attorneys
General in this Colony have for many years past endeavoured
to establish a claim to act as Chief Justice. No definite
ruling has been laid down on the subject but the weight
of precedent is in favour of appointing the Attorney rather
than the Pulene Judge to act as Chief Justice.
In my view, and I think Sir F. Lugard with whom
I recently discussed the subject in another connection holds
the same opinion, it is as a rule undesirable to appoint
the Attorney General to sit on the Bench. Apart from the
question of objection to his possibly being called upon to
sit in judgment on cases in which he has previously advised
the Government it is at all times difficult to find in the
ranks of the Civil Service a qualified lawyer to take the
Attorney General's place, and it is obviously objectionable
to bring in for short periods a lawyer, or perhaps different
lawyers at different times, in private practice to act for
the Attorney General. There is the further objection that
if