NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 927, 21 September 1910, Page 6

NOTES OF THE DAY.

; Commenting the other day upon the Chief Justice's order that a oertain prisoner admitted to probation should abstain from smoking we entered an objection to the tendency of the Legislature and the Courts to found their decisions upon doubtful, unsound, or unproved theories.. It is interesting to note in this connection that very strong doubt may attach to the value of handwriting as evidence in courts of law. In a certain very important case in which the father of an Osborne cadet, who had been expelled for ■ alleged theft, succeeded in bringing the Admiralty into the .Courts and vindicating his boy, (the main evidence against the cadet was some handwriting.' Sir Edward Carson, who .was counsel for the : boy's _ parent, protested against the admission of the "evidence" relating to handwriting, and affirmed that such "evidence" ' was unsound. In a letter to the Times on August I,' commenting on a statement iri the House of Commons by Mr. M'Kenna that the handwriting "expert" had not suffered in reputation through the worthlessness of his evidence having been proved, Sir Edward Carson said he "had hoped that the result. of ■ this case would help to put an end to the idea that any reliance whatever can be placed upon the opinion of so-called experts in handwriting." He mentioned that on one occasion when he declined to cross-examine an "expert" on the ground that there was no way of testing his evidence, Lord Russell of Killowen had agreed. "I think," ho adds, "it was Baron Fitzgerald, a, great Judge, who said that the only 'experts' of handwriting were the twelvo jurors."' Sir : Edward . Carson's opinions found what must have been an unexpected body of support. It was recalled that the evidence against the unfortunate Adolf Beck was partly that of a handwriting "expert." The Daily News printed an interview with a very competent authority who showed how little there is of the nature of scientific exactitude in theories of handwriting, and the Spectator honed that the Osborne cadet case would assist to "bring such evidence into denerved ridicule and contempt." Tho

frequoncy with which tho handwriting "expert" appears in our own Courts gives a real importance to the discredit into which this sort of evidence has fallen in Great Britain.

Following a common practice of his, the . Prime Minister yesterday claimed for himself and those who support him a monopoly of patriotism and disinterestedness, flo was speaking on the Loan Bill, and he referred to, the critics who object to heavy borrowing as people actuated by political and partisan motives. It is, of course, impossible for us to say whether the Prime Minister really believes this. Perhaps , lie does. Wo would not-for a moment think of asking him to correct his error, and believe in his heart that his critics are' at least as devoted to the nation's interests as he is. But it does strike us as being within the bounds of propriety to suggest to him that, whatever he may believe, he might consult his own. interests by refraining , from placing on record such an absurdity as that you are a'disinterested patriot when you applaud him and. an unscrupulous partisan when you. do not. There is a further point, which we mention without much hope of its beiifg understoodi.by the Prime Minister. It concerns tone in political leadership. Keviewing the late session of the British Parliament on August 5, the 'Saturday Review, which is violently hostile to the British Government, paid a great tribute to the manner in which Mr. Asq'uith dealt with, the ceremonial occasions and national issues during the session. ' ."The. greater' the occasion, the more he rises to it. The big national l occasion finds him ready." And then the Review wadded these :very shrewd observations:., Botli parties should rejoice'at this, for nothing is to be gained by anyone in the end if political leaders reach but a low standard. Then we all suffer.. No reasonable Unionist should regret that the Prime Minister, has enhanced and fortified his reputation, for the whole nation is the beneficiary of ■ great 'statesmanship in, its leaders... We assure' Sib Joseph that there.is.a,, great truth in this, and doing so, we; leave it to him to determine by how. much ho -isjir'aising the standard of statesmanship, by claiming for himself and his friends a monopoly of honour and patriotism. . :

The decision of the Wellington Harbour Board'to agree (subject to certain-conditions as <to obtaining the necessary legislative authority.) to release, the contractors, for, the construction.'of the graving dock, from their. undertaking, to complete , the work will not : occasion . any - very great surprise. It has been current gossip for,'some time past that thework was likely to be abandoned, a!nd the only question at issue appeared to be the terms under-which this would'be permitted. While'.we' quite believe that the Harbour Board has acted wisely in agreeing to discontinue the work, we should like Ito know somethiijg more about 'the position before; coming to a definite conclusion on the point: / For some' reason; the Board has not. yet. seen its way to. take the public, who have -.to ■•"pay.'- the piper,'. into , its confidence -in the matter. '' During the time negotiations''between';Hhe Board and tho contractors were in progress it was only. natural ; that ! the Board should ' have preserved a discreet silence, but now that a definite decision has been arrived at the whole, facts should be made, known. How much, has -,beeh : spent . oh the; undertaking lio date ?, ' What .'is the ; community's' loss through the abandonment of the . work ? .' Why . has the' Board agreed to its. abandonment.? As .we remarked before,. we believe the - non-completion of the work will. save the Board from a heavy future loss,, but what sacrifice of principle and of money already expended. wilL result from the decision now arrived at? According to tho Graving. Dock Fund Account as at September 30, 1909, £30,548. had then' been expended out of the total of -£250,000 authorised. ' Is . the whole.; of this sum to be lost by the abandonment of the work-t If not,; how much -of the expenditure incurred will be, of value? On the question 1 of the principle of permitting V a contractor to relinquish a large contract of this kind without enforcing penalties, prescribed" under the contract, we prefer' to say' nothing at prosent.. The .contractors state- that they have lost heavily over the uht dertaking, and there are special circumstances which may or may not justify them being, . treated -with speciar .consideration. But before anything is done in the matter the Board will .require to take the public fully into''its confidence/ The PrimeMinister has been good enough to promise, the Board his assistance in securing 'the passing of legislation' to permit- it to abandon the work it is at- present/ pledged to carry through. Presumably ; it • supplied Sir Joseph Ward with the full facts of. the position before he committed himself to this promise. The public probably would have felt easier in their minds over the Board's . decision had they received the same consideration.

The discussion in the House of Representatives . yesterday on' -the proposal of the.'Government to borrow- 1 . £500,000 to develop the waferpower running -to .waste. in the Dominion did not disclose any 'definite ideas on.the- part of Ministers on. this very interesting subject. Sir Joseph Ward very' properly withdrew his prop'oskl, to include the borrowing power stated in the Public Works Bill, which already provides for a loan totalling £1,750,000. The water-power scheme is an entirely different question, and requires to be';treafed.from. an.,: entirely different standpoint. ; Members and the public will probably be struck with the very hazy views expressed by Ministers as to the. intentions of the. Government. They apparently have no definite scheme in view, and expect Parliament to vote them a blank cheque for half a million. Sir Joseph Ward, in reply to Mr. Massey, stated that he would not place the proposals of the Government before the House until the Bill authorising- the loan was passed. This is very wrong. In-a matter of this kind... the House is entitled to tho fullest information bofore committing, .itself to the expenditure of .so large a sum. As a matter of fact, the amount is ab-. s'urdly large. It is not likely that there will be any. expenditure worth speaking of before Parliament again meets, and a sum_ of £100,000 would be ample to begin this new departure with. Before anything at all 'is. done in the way of establishing power stations it .is imperative that the . best outpide advice procurable should be obtained, and so far as has been discloscd'_ nothing has yet been done in this direction. The House will need to move warily in connection with this latest borrowing proposal.'