THE ADVOCATE 623
VOL. 80 PART 4 JULY 2022
E.C. Mayers—appointed by Order-in-Council, January 27th, 1922 Attorney-
General—J.W. deB. Farris
Order in Council—February 10th, 1922
That the said E.C. Mayers has returned the said letters patent with the
announcement that, having regard to the circumstances of the offer, he did
not feel justified in accepting it, and therefore declined such appointment.
Commission dated January 30, 1922, cancelled.
However and for whatever reason Mr. Mayers was again appointed a K.C.
by Order in Council July 27, 1928—Attorney General A.W. Manson—and
this appointment was not refused.
Complaints regarding the numbers and methods of appointment commenced
after the appointment of 8 Q.C.’s in 1928. A letter in the Morning
Star, September 16, 1928 reads as follows:
Sir—In reference to Mr. Woodworth’s letter about the too lavish appointment
of K.C.’s I would suggest a very simple remedy. Let the Bar Association
make a rule similar to that in the Old Country whereby a K.C. is
precluded from practicing in an inferior court and making it obligatory
for him to appear with a junior who is entitled to one-third of the fees. I
would warrant that the demand for silk would diminish considerably.
It is a fact in the Old Country that a leading junior loses about a third
of his income on taking silk.
THERSITES
In fact this province has never suffered from a plethora of appointments,
certainly not compared to other areas. The average percent in British
Columbia over the years being in the area of six per cent while other
provinces range up to and in some cases over thirty per cent. The latter figure
moved a lawyer from such a province to write to our Secretary: “It
reminds me of the Southern gentleman who called all his dogs ‘Colonel’ and
when asked why he replied that every S.O.B. down here is a Colonel”.
There have been problems in settling the rights of Q.C.’s who, since 1899,
have been appointed by other provinces and have moved to British Columbia,
and also the position of Q.C.’s appointed under Dominion Patent. In
1962 the matter was considered by the benchers with the resulting ruling
that “the title of Q.C. if granted by any other Province should not be recognized
in British Columbia. Furthermore that the member should not use the
title on his letterhead”.5
Insofar as the Dominion Q.C. is concerned an opinion of Ronald J. Macdonald
prepared for the Law Society of Upper Canada would indicate a sort
of stand off: “the writer arrives at the conclusion that, apart from an invitation
by the presiding judge, a federal Queen’s Counsel is not entitled to rate
as such where appearing as counsel in a provincial court and likewise that