NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 861, 6 July 1910, Page 6

NOTES OF THE DAY.

No doubt the public generally, and the supporters of the freehold in particular, have noted with interest and amusement certain : signs that the leaseholders in the Ministerialist party are much less buoyant than they used to be. To-day for example we read that the Hon. B,..Loughnan, who may always be relied upon to reflect with perfect fidelity the ideas which the Government happens to cherish for the moment, is quite astonished at the suggestion that the fate of the Government is at stake over the land question. "He believed," the report reads, "that it did not matter twopence whether the tenure was leasehold or. freehold." The question of tenure, ho tells us, "has passed away." No doubt Du. Findlay, who was first in the field with the humorous notion, that it was absurd, this fuss about tenure, will say x the same thing later on. To-day, also, wo arc given the opinion.of Mr. Forbes, M.l J . Mr. Forbes is not a commanding figure in general politics, but he has been the strongest card of the leasehold party, as a practical farmer and a Crown leaseholder who loves the leasehold. He has quoted Himself, and lias been quoted by his leasehold frionds, whenever anybody has ventured the suggestion that men prefer to be their own landlords. And now Me. Forbes is a backslider. What is wanted, he says, is settlement:, the question of tenure is of minor importance. It is not nocessary here to insist that the tenure question lies at -the root of the problem of sound, productive settlement. We only desire to note the preparations that are being made by tho Government and its followers for a new performance ■ with the eccentric flag that was run up by Mr. M'Nab in 1908. The position of the leaseholders is certainly ignominious, but the freeholders must not permit the embarrassment of the enemy to relax their own vigilance and determination to bring the question to an issue this vcar. .

There is no further news from Denniston concerning the trouble in the coal-mines, but wc shall hear something definite in_ a day or two. The miners have decided to remain at work for the present, and to take a ballot to-day as to whether or not a strike shall be ordered. It is possible that there will not be a strike, and it is to be hoped that the ballotwill decide against war. But one cannot help wondering what the friends, of the Arbitration Act have to say about "the new spirit" generated by the Act, and about the value of the : Act. as a measure making for peace. When the miners can decide to take a ballot as to the advisableness of the- strike, who that allows himself to be led by his reason can deny that even in its amended form the Act is treated as a perfectly idle enactment? The Act forbids strikes;' it provides severe penalties for striking. And the workers say, in effect, "Yes, yes —a very good Act, a very good Act indeed. It forbids strikes? Of course, and very sensible of it. And now, let us proceed to business— "shall we strike or not?" Just as we all admire and applaud Don.Quixote and never read it, so Labour admires and-applauds the Arbitration Act and never dreams of obeying it.

The explanations made in the House of' Representatives yesterday afternoon by Mr. Davey and Mr. Taylor regarding; the alleged falsification of a police charge-sheet at Ohristchurch cannot be passed over without comment. We frequently differ with the member' for Christchurch North, Me. Tayeor, but we are astonished to find that, anyone could, for .a moment, blame him for directing the attention of the Minister for Justice to the very improper interference with the police records alleged. When the facts were brought under Mr. Taylor's notice, no other course, was open to him than to see that the allegations were investigated by the proper authorities. No doubt there ar<> people who will say that tho man arrested was a respectable citizen, guilty only of a single lapse, and that it was merely an act of good nature on the part of Mr. Davey and of the police officer concerned tu interfere in his behalf. Probably all these things are correct. But there is a more serious side to the situation. ' How comes it that the citizen in trouble went to a member of Parliament to get him out of his difficulty with the police 1 Obviously because he thought a, member of Parliament would possess more influence with the polico in getting them to screen his offence than a private citizen. ■And by virtue of what power does a member of. Parliament exercise this greater influence over the police than any other member of the public 1. Plainly the only answer to the question is that he derives that influence from his political office and tho opportunity which it .may give him to further or retard the interests of employees of the State. If this is so, it must follow that _ a friend of a member of Parliament is liable at any time to receive more favourable treatment at the hands of the police than the ordinary citizen. Wo do not suggest that any of the persons concerned in this unfortunate business troubled to think out tho matter in this way. ' We arc prepared to believe that they did not realise the seriousness of their actions, and that they did not recognise the inferences which might be drawn therefrom to the detriment of the police force gen- j erally. The seriousness _ of tho posi-tion-lies in part in this fact, that they all appear to have acted instinctively and as though they were merely doing a reasonable tiring.

Mr. Taylor very plainly pointed out the danger underlying this situation, and we do not think anyone who reads the explanations made yesterday can. have a moment's doubt on the subject. A gratifying feature of the business was the statement that despite the influences at work one constable at least refused to be a party to the substitution of a false name for that of the person arrested. In the circumstances this is commendable and the Minister for Justice should not overlook this man's conduct.