NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 891, 10 August 1910, Page 6

NOTES OF THE DAY.

In ' the House yesterday Mr. Massey made a very neat and simple exposure of a rom'arkablc change of front on tho part of the Hoy. J. Carroll, as disclosed in his recent speech upon the Native land question. Nothing, it will be remembered, could have exceeded the fire and pathos of the Minister's reply, to Mr. Herries's suggestion that tho Maori should bo placed on the same footing as the European. The whole Dominion is talking of the noble eloquence with which he proclaimed the importance of giving: to the Maori'special protection against the lustful greed of tho ydkcha. This sentiment was greeted with salvoes of applause from the Radical press. Our evening contemporary, for example, declared in its enthusiasm that "to establish an absolute legal equality in respect of property rights bctweon two races, one of which is many centuries ahead of the other on the upward path _ of national evolution, is really equivalent to putting the proporty of the more backward race to a/very largo extent at the mercy of the other. It was his

vivid appreciation of this fact," our contemporary added, "that roused the Native Minister from his usual calm, and fired him into really stirring eloquence." And yet Me. Caeroll had once, when, as a private mornber, he had no Ministerial interest in blocking the path of progress, an equally vivid appreciation of an exactly opposite fact. Ho moved a motion, as sweeping in its completeness as a legal document, affirming that all distinctions between the Maori and pakeha should be obliterated. He wanted, not only equality of treatment under the law, but equality of treatment in description: he even wanted an end of the phrase "Maori and pakeha," and the substitution of the phrase "the people of New Zealand." Mr. Massey recalled this motion yesterday, and gave notice to move it on his own account. Wo may supplement this interesting commentary on Me. Caeeoll's'present position by reminding the public of what Me. Ngata said last year at a gathenig in this city, namely, that'"the maintenance of the Maori as a distinct .and separate raco is impossible." The Government's Native policy is good neither for the Maori nor for the nation. If the policy of treating the Maori as a child would elevate the Native race, the nation might not protest ag-ainst the handicap such a policy imposes on' national progress. But how can a decaying, race be made strong by keeping it in bandages and on <;rutches, by carefully training it to I utter, by treating it as a sick child? U.E. Caeroll 7'ill need all his eloquence to explain how he comes to onpose to-day his former wise and disinterested creed.

The little gathering of malcontents at Hastings who-attacked their member, Mr. Dillon, 'for keeping his election pledge to his constitu-' ents cut rather a sorry figure. They certainly, carried their motion of censure, but they probably have raised Me. Dillon to a higher position in the esteem of the majority of his constituents • than he ever held before. When u public man niakes a promise to his constituents to vote in a given way on a clear-cut issue he is expected to keep that promise. r The five members of the Government who kept'their promises in regard to their votes on the freehold issue did nothing more than their, plain duty; but there has been : so .little regard for pledges in recent times •that it is not surprising, perhaps, that their action has caused a good doal of comment. Their- position with their party, may be rendered temporarily unpleasant, but no one can doubt that in their electorates their action has placed them in a much stronger position than " they would have been in had they sacrificed their principles and pledges at the call of the partj Whip. Mh. Dillon's blunt and courageous statement of his position is in striking contrast to that of the member for ptaki, whose profuse apologies were an entertaining feature of yesterday's debate in the House.

The public will derive much entertainment this morning from a ■ perusal of the speech of the member for Otaki, in which ho sought to, explain away his vote against the Government. Mil.- Field's flounderings were really very, diverting, and he will have-thoroughly well earned the Chairmanship ot Committees, or, say,;any other-distinction which a grateful party may choose to bestow upon him. It is indeed unfortunate thai any candidate for Parliament should be compelled to place , his views, before the electors ere he can hope to secure their votes. . It would be very much simpler, and certainly very, much pleasanter, for the candidate, after election, if he had merely to say to the electors when wooing their suffrages, something like the following: "Ladies and gentlemen: It really does not matter very much what you think or what you want. You can trust me to vote for the Government every time—the Government can do no wrong. Whatever you may think is right, or whatever 1 may think is right, does not count. We must all be wrong if the Government say so. It is intolerable that your opinions and wishes should be allowed to embarrass me or the Ministers, whose word should' be your law," The Mr. Fields of politics would in' such case, if elected, have all their troubles smoothed away, and could simply .attend at Parliament each session to record their votss as' Ministers might dictate. Unhappily for them, and fortunately for the country, the electors to-day want to exercise their right to control the actions of the Government of the day. Mil. Field is- very sad and sorry at having to record his vote against the Government, and very resentful of having to. give a pledge to his constituents which com-' polled him so to vote; but Mr. Field knows perfectly well that he would not be in Parliament to-day to record that vote-had he.not given the pledge. Why then does not the member for Otaki frankly place the whole blame on the shoulders of the only person blameable—that is the member for Otaki.himself 1

The English mail to hand this week brings lengthy reports of the proceedings of the- French. Chamber of Deputies, which had just met for its first; session after the general elections. Reading thdse reports we have been unable to keep ourselves from wondering what our own politicians would thirjk of M. Bkiakd'S methods. "The Government," said an official Note on -the reassembling of the Chamber, "will come before Parliament with definite and precise views on every essential question, ind will declare categorically what it wishes to do. . . . ■ No attempt will be made to temporise or to evade the difficulties of the situation by dilatory methods. From the first day of the Legislature Parliament will be in possession of the Government's intention." Not only did M, Briand make good these words by stating in detail the substance of every important ;Bill; he also expressed some views that Sir Joseph Ward will perhaps think shocking and offensive and altof ether unparliamentary. "It would avo been easy," he said, "to have drafted a programme which would have the united applause of the majority," but ho preferred to proceed strictly on the traditional Republican lines. The Government demanded complete confidence or none at all. Like Sm Joseph, M. Biuand has the worry of an advanced Radical-Socialist group, but ho has his own way of dealing with the situation. He thus concluded his speech: "I have never been one of the Radical party. It weakens my positionperhaps, in your eyes, it disqualifies me. In that case say so frankly.

. My last words are: 'Either all or nothing. . Give mo your full and loyal confidence or refuse it to me altogether." How a Prime Min-

ister can say such terrible things wo must leave Ministers to puzzic out at their leisure. It will shock thorn to learp that M. Briand's attitude is admired in Britain, even in Conservative quarters. -It will shock them still mure to learn the reason why it is admired. The Morniwj I'ost admires it because it justifies the hope that the present conditions in France will be changed.

The contempt into whioh the whole structure of Parliamentary institutions in France had fallen under the name of "purlemontarisme" (says the "Post") can be realised adequately only by observers closely in touch with the French electorate aud with its different strata. The source of this disgust-an expression hardly too strong to describe the sentiment evinced—was complex. Fundamoutally, it sprang froiii the knowledge that the Administration has remained the elective ruler under the guise of the democratic changes which have succeeded one another in late years. The Chamber of Deputies had, in fact, become an instrument in the hunds ••f the Administration. There are other sides to this question, and it enn easily be shown that the Administration has also become a tool in the hands of Deputies as controlled by the paramount interests in their individual circonsoriptions." . . . The Ministry was coming to ignore the Chamber of Deputies regarded as a Legislative body. >

In fact, Franco had gradually .developed the position that obtains in New Zealand. And now.a new Premier is trying to alter this of things, and proclaiming his policy, and publishing all his Bills! It is very shocking!