CO129-347 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1908 [4-6] — Page 478

We know that as

the interpreter of the Constitution Ilis Honour is the custodian of the public interests but we hardly think that this can give him the right to decide what constitutes the public interest on any question which may arise. H. E. the Governor evidently was similarly doubt- ful, as he referred the matter to the Chamber of Commerce. With she very best of intentions, no doubt, the Chief' Justice prescribed for the public a two month's vacation pill when the unbappy public was quite unaware that it re- quired any kind of medicine. It is contrary to custom, to say the least of it, for a physician to prescribe for a patient who has not consulted him. But we find in this case that the patient has something to say for himself and emphatically refuses the heroic remedy | recommended to him for a malady from which he is convinced he does not suffer.

We presume that Sir Francis Piggott will admit that the Committee of the Chamber of Commerce is as well quali- fied to judge in what direction the pub- lic interests lie as is he. What does

this aggregation of barth-headed business men, thoroughly representative of the public whose interests have been the subject of so much touching regard, say to the proposal? After seeking informa- tion, presumably from the best sources, the deliberate statement is made: "The Committee after carefully considering the question can only come to the con- clusion that it is neither in the public' interest to enlarge the existing official list of holidays of the Supreme Court, nor that a good case has been made out by the advocates of this scheme." Thus it will be seen that the public's au- thorised physician dechires that the f vacation pill is unnecessary while the unauthorised physician holds and ex- presses an exactly contrary view! Sir Francis Piggott declares that "the real question in issue" was: What is to be done in order to prevent those wicked barristers going away: without so much as "with your leave, or by your leave, for a three months' holiday at any time during the year, suiting their own convenience and Honting the public interest ?

To solve

this question the Chief Justice called a meeting of both branches of the profes sion at which it was decided, Sir Francis concurring, to extend the vacation to two months: "these two months being selerted at a time of the year when the cool fine weather of the north might refesh, somewhat jaded with much law and argument during the summer beat, and send us back more keenly alive to the virtuous complainings of many suitors, and more capable of ap- precisting the rights and wrongs of our fellow creatures." The word "us," which we have italicised, is of import- anco. It is evidently meant that the Judge, as well as the Bar, should enjoy "the cool fine weather of the north." But the "real question in issue"--we quoto the Chief Justice's words-was preventing the barristers going away. Did the barristers make it a stipulation that they would not agree to a two

I months' vacation for themselves unless it were extended to the official bead of the Supreme Court? If not the "real question in issue" could have been solved by getting the barristers to agree to restrict their holiday to two months. We agree with His Honour 1but if there were three Judges in Original Jurisdiction the argument in favour of the Long Vacation "would be the same," though we hold our own opinion of the value of that argument in any cireuse- stances. But we fail to follow the Chief Justice when he says that he sees no connection between the number of Judges at work and the respite they require. Surely if the work now performed by two Judges were per- formed by three the strain on the two would be considerably relaxed and the need of a respite lessened? This is too obrious for argument. We leave the natter at this but not before assuring the Chief Justice of the personal regard and esteem in which we hold him, and expressing the hope that an honest expression of opinion on a public question will not be in any way misconstrued.

(2)

475