NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 670, 22 November 1909, Page 6

NOTES OF THE DAY.

The Peime Minister is to be complimented on tho fact that he has : laid before members' some details of the retrenchment so far carried out by the Government. Of course the information supplied was/ quite inadequate to enable members ; to form any definite opinion as to the extent of the saving made or of the genuineness of the Ministerial professions as: to economies to bo practised. Sir Joseph Ward's actionj however, was his first concession of the right of members to full information on this very important sub-' ■ject. /It is a mistake to think that '.retrenchment necessarily means-dismissal of employees. -This indeed is admitted by Ministers, who claim that a laree part, of the saving effected has'been made by dutting down expense's, apart from salaries, connected with the, various Departments. We cannot agree with the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition" in thinking it. unnecessary to disclose to the House the names of : retrenched. .Me, MasSEY apparently would be quite satisfied with: a list showing the number of jperßom retrenched in each Department. It is desirable, in our opiriionj that as tho Estimates of • each Department,, come up for consideration the names of .'the officers retrenched,., with their salaries* should bo given. Indeed,:wo do not see why the names; date of appointment, and- salaries of the wholo of .the"officers of the Public Service—excepting the Railways and' Post' and Telegraph.—should not bq laid on the table of the House so that members may have some opportunity ; of ■ judging"for themselves the system of selection , followed in, connection -with tho, dismissals which have taken place.. Wo have, heard strong complaints iii resppefc:' of ■ the selection made in 'the ( taxing ; and yaluatibn; Department, ■■; Whether, Ministers ''were re-sponsible-for this is:best known to, themselves—probably they.were not'■:.'.lt'woμld clear tne air, however, if the Government,took, thej House and : the countryfully "into their confidence, and no better opportunity will; offer ;,than that which 'presents itself when- the Estimates, of the various Departments! are under considera■tioh. : .;.:■■;.•■•' 'V : ■'- '.■- ■'':•' '\' : ' : ■ ; -.■■'. ' : .'.^ {

It is pleasing, to note that the. Seamen's. Union .appears to _ have a, proper. sense',of its responsibilities,;■ under: ; the Arbitration law. 'We oommented in our last'issue: on the.ilawlessness underlying the suggestion thatjiinder a'certain.contingency the seamen! employed -on intercolonial steamers Bhould strike, in sympathy with the coal porkers in Australia. has been such a contoniptubud; disregard ior fjheir obligations underiArbi-. tfatioh " Court '.awards by, a section. of trades unioilistsTwhbn matters run counter to their Awishes, that it us ; gratifying to find a large and pbwerfiil/organisation such as tho -Sciimon's Union setting a good example to otlier:labour 'bodicß. Tho public, we feol certain, will 1 not'.lend sympathy • or-support, to .any''attempt .on the part of trades unionists to assist the strikers in Australia .which . involvosj a defianco of ,iho'laws'; under, which the industries of. this country, ard;carried on. Tho unions, if they .desire to: dtf so, can assist by means'"of financial cont'rib,utionsi but itis well that they should realise that any unreasonable attempt t0i. , ; , -interfere, with the industries of tho'Dominion'in.an erideayour to help the coal etrikers will certainly be attended \yith serious consequences to themselves., '.' .We'note.that tne : statement .''that ' intercolonial steamers trading from ;New Zealand 'to. Australia will not be'_ allowed' to carry, 1 sufficient, coal .-frpm.'thie:country to jmakp 'the round trip istiiscrodited by Mr. Kehnedy, local manager of the Unions Steam -'■ Ship Company.; -It is not surprising that .he slioiild: consider so outrageous an ■ interferenoe with the means : of communication .between the.two countries incredibloj.and 'wo trust;thathis estimate of 'the position is:the corroct one. ;Until the statement 'of Mr-'Semple is contradicted, however,: the uneasiness which its 'circulationcreated, is. likely to continuO: and have a harmful effect ■'■•■. v;..- : v';..:,.- • '■. .'• ■ .;■/■■,■:::;;■:;■ ;v /■; The: action 'of Uio : ;Minister; for Justice in permitting the Commissioner of Pblic6 to make public'his i'ojply to the findings of tho Hoyal Commission v was an unwise one. Dβ, Findlay won our commendation and '.the,' commendation of all right-think-ing', peopleby '.refusing: ; to : alldw : :Me.' DiNNiE to lay his reply to Mb'. Bishop's findings; on: the table of the House. ' The report of the, Eoyal Commission,/;arrived at after hearing all;the. evidence, including Me. Bihnie's, should not have been open to public- attack 'by a Government official affected, else'.where is the matter to end? ; Necessarily, Mel Dinnie -ivould be called:on by ; his Departmental head tti reply:to the strictures passed on,him by. the Hoyal: Cbmihissioh; and it was quite proper that ho should point but to the Minister any inconsistencies or any weaknesses'which he might think existed in,the report so far: as it • related to himself.; .The Minister and. .the': Gbv<irnmcnt,viri' considering the, recommendations pf' the Royal Commission, would also weigh Mr. Dinnie's observations Jthereon, and when announcing their decision to Parliament could put'ME. Dinnie's. side of the case. It wduld be thqir obvious duty, to do so. But: whon Mr. Dinnie publishes broadcast his comments on the B-oyal Commissipn's findings it creates an entirely false position; .It discloses a lamentable. lack of .respect for a tribunal which should be treated with the most careful regard for its high and. responsible obligations; arid permits the reopening in a quite improper way of matters;which, So. far as the Itoyal Commission ie concerned, have been finally 'closed. I. Mr. Dinnie mayor may not be ableto show that Me.' Bishop waswrong in -his conclusions, or. that the evidonco did not support them} but it is. his business to show this to his Departmental head, not to publish hie opinions in tho public press. 'What would bo .thought of the action of a public servant who ruehed into print in order to criticise tho actions of a Judge of the Supreme Court who, in the course of his judicial functions, found fault with the manner in which tho public Rorvant performed his duties? Such a courso of action would not bo toloratcd for one moment. And yet this k practically what Ministers have sanctioned. Dr. FiNDLAYj as Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, usually is very careful to follow the proper courso in'.mattors affecting the dignity and standing of judicial tribunals, and. it is difficult to understand liis lapse on the present oeca'aioo> ■ : '■"•■■. .•''' ■■„■' ~': . '; ■■ ■'■'... •.'•■■'