NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 958, 27 October 1910, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

Duiung late years divisions in the Legislative Council have become less and less frequent. Nowadays a division is rare, and that is sufficient reason for noting the fact that the Council divided twice on Tuesday when in Committee on the Stone Quarries Bill. But there is another reason why these divisions call for remark. They both arose, out pf proposals by the Hon. J. T. Paul to amend the Bill in the direction of sharpening its application. On the first amendment he was supported by Messrs. Rigg and AYigram, but several members opposed the motion on the ground that it would jeopardise the whole Bill. The Attorney-Gen-eral opposed it on the ground that his colleague, the Hon. R. M'Kenzie, had stated that if the Bill were altered it would not get through. He urged also that "it was not his own Bill and he had a duty .to perform to his colleague." Messrs., Rigg and Paul urged that the business of the Council was to do what it thought best; to deal with the question on its merits. "Let us," said Mr. Rigg, "do- the right thing, even, if we lose the Bill. Let the responsibility lie on that branch of the Legislature which destroys the measure." The same point was also made, arid very well made, by Mr. Paul. He "thought the Council surely had a function to perform. He did not think they should be circumscribed or restricted in what they did. When they got down to the essential merits of the Bill they were told that the Council should not put on record its real opinion. This was putting them in a very invidious and unfair position." By two to one, however, the amendment was lost. We rather fancy the ■ Council acted rightly, but the Government's majority, on the evidence of ' the speeches,, voted as they did only, because they accepted the ' AttorneyGeneral's theory that the' Council is the servant of the Ministry. It is a vicious theory. Of what use is a "revising" .Chamber that dare not revise.? The Attorney-General made a great fuss, yesterday'..-over- what everyone knows was really nothing more than a technical breach of the privileges of the Legislative Council—we refer to Mr. Hine's charge against a member of; the Council— but his own attitude on the Stone Quarries Bill was. infinitely more damaging to the prestige and dignity' of. ■ the Upper Chamber. Messrs.' Rigg, and Paul, with ,whose politics we rarely have the pleasure of agreeing, arc deserving of the greatest credit for their protest against the degrading doctrine that the 'Council should have, no mind of its own.

The twelve members of,the House of Representatives who voted last j evening. to kill the Land Tax and Income Tax Amendment .Rill as a protest against this increase of taxation'in face of the huge surplus: already in prospect' deserve tlje thanks of the whole community. Not the slightest reason' was given for. increasing taxation—that' is to say, not the slightest justification for the increase was'shown. that ■the' Prime Minister talked about the need for public works and of men being. thrown out of employment if these works were' stopped. But everyone who knows anything about the matter at all knows .that, the Government already has more money to spend this year than it had during the preceding year. What with tho £1,750,000-loan already, authorised;' together with the £662,366 availableat the beginning of the year and the additional half-million in hand '■ to' bo transferred from the Consolidated Fundi they have authority for nearly three millions, apart.altogether from: their .water power scheme and the borrowing- and lending Departments of the State. Last year the Public Works Fund expenditure was only a fraction over two and a half millions. How, in the face of this, with three millions or thereabouts already available, can the Prime Minister talk about the necessity for further taxation to provide money for public works 1 Mr. Taylor and those who voted with him were on absolutely sound ground in opposing the increase of taxation now forced on the .country. Their. justification will be shown when the revenue returns for the year are disclosed and the Prime Minister announces that the Dominion has again broken all its previous revenue records.

Imperial Consols, according ,to a cable message we publish, this morning, are down to £79 7s. 6d., which represents a fall of ss. in a single day; a big variation for Consols. The movements during the past ten days, as disclosed by the cables, are. as under: '.■■'. ■ £'e. A. October 14- ......._'.... 80 0 0 .'.' . October 20 70.15 0 October 20 ■. 80 0 0 October 24 ■• 79 12 0 • '■ October 25 ; 79 7 6. On October 20' the decline to £79 was coincident with the advance in the bank rate from i to 5 per cent, at all events the rate was raised on that date, and it seems a_ fair thing to suggest that the declines registered on Monday and Tuesday foreshadow, a further advance in bank rate. If this view is correct then the rate will to-day_ be advanced to 6 per cent and advices of the movement should be received by cable tomorrow. Some of the greatest sufferers through the depreciation in Consols and other securities have been the banking institutions of the United Kingdom, insurance companies, and friendly societies. The writing down that has had to be done in consequence by the banks and other- .investors represents a very large sum. It is .stated that in the case of one London institution the rate of dividend had to be reduced because of the amounts that have had to be transferred qui- of profits to cover such depreciation. In other.cases banks have abandoned the practice of paying dividends free of income tax. Evidence exists that heavy sales .of British securities have been made, _ in order that the capital released might be in-, vested in the attractive issues that have been placed on the London market during the year. Not only has the rate of interest offered beenhigher than that obtainable on some of the best of English stocks, but the security could be regarded as first-class. In addition the fresh burdens imposed on capital by recent legislation have been instrumental in diverting investments abroad.

Tjie new Labour Government in New South Wales is certainly disr tinguishing itself. In releasing Peter Bowling, the strike leader, it aimed a deadly blow at the foundations of judicial independence. And yesterday a cable message records a new exploit. Some months ago a, m&a murdered a, child midcr

the most dreadful circumstances, ! and lie was lately sentenced to death. The new Government has commuted his sentence to imprisonment for life. It is not suggested that their action is due to any political cause, it is' probable-that in this caso the Government's decision is due to simple inexperience and absence of a proper sense of responsibility. The rca l son it gives for its action is just the sort of reason one would expect of men untrained to think clearly. The crime, they argue, though revolting, "was not premeditated, and the death penalty is unlikely to deter other criminals who are likely to commit similar offences in a moment of excitement." This is more than sloppy sentimentalism: it is sheer wilfui blindness to facts. Some murders, no doubt, are long and carefully planned, while others,are sudden and unpremeditated. But to begin to differentiate about motives, and premeditation, and provocation is to start on the way towards abolishing capital punishment altogether. And the abolition of capital punishment will mean a great increase in the tale of homicides. "Capital punishment," as the Eeichsboie observed the other day, in commenting upon the decision of the Congress of German Jurists last month that capital punishment should not be abolished, "is'the only safeguard possessed by- human society against the inhumanity of its degenerate-members." .