NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 968, 8 November 1910, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

The Prime Minister is deserving of some credit for his attempt to remedy some of the evils of our antiquated law of libel. Tho Bill dealing with tho subject was circulated last night and while it still leaves ample room for improvement it certainly is an advance on the existing law. People generally do not realise ■how fettered tho press of this country is, in the publication of matters of public concern, as compared with the Mother Country and other parts of the Empire. No reasonable person, wo think, would refuse tho right to a newspaper to publish in its columns matters which it is. in the ?üblic interest should be published, f a newspaper, ia order to avoid a libel action, has to _ make certain that tho statements it publishes are both accurate and in the public interest, that should be quite sufficient safeguard for anyone. Yet for years the press of the country has been refused this amount of consideration and has been further penalised by being subjected to the risk of blackmailing actions by persons of no substance who rely on their inipeeuniosity to further their ends. News-

paper proprietors have, unwisely in many cases, conceded demands of this nature rather than go to Court to fight actions which, even if they won, would prove more costly than settling the claim out o£ Court. They know perfectly well that the claimant in such cases cannot pay the costs of the action if beaten. From a glance at the Bill just circulated it would seem that the Pkime Minister has not gone very far in the direction of removing the existing hlots on our libel law. Still it is a step in the right direction and ho is to be commended for having taken the matter in hand.

Some comments published in a recent issue of the Australasian on the attitude of the Federal Senate towards legislation are remarkably applicable to our own Legislative Council where policy measures' are concerned. Here is an extract:

In abandoning its functions as a house of review, and making itself a more echo of the ruling party in the House of Representatives, the benate is destroying its own usefulness, and, so surely as political tendencies count for anything, is preparing the way for its own ■ abolition, or at least its thorough reconstruction. The taxpayers will come ultimately to the desire to get rid of a costly House whioh abstains from the performance of any real legislative work. In spite of powerful arguments, which have proved how clumsy, burdensome, and perilous the tax will be, Labour senators lack the courage to support any material alteration, and face the howl of rage which would then bo directed against them in caucus. "Your arguments may make us change our opinions, but they will not change our votes," was 'the contomptible confession made by one senator to Sir Josiah Syinon; and the machine politics of the Labour party stand . condemned when they can iuduco such a coarse admission of insincerity.

It cannot be said with justice that tho Upper House in New Zealand never does any real legislative wol-k —as a matter of fact it has, through the efforts of a small section of its members, on occasions done very useful work—but it is so completely dominated by the Government of the day that the Government can at any time _do practically what it pleases with it. A further extract from the article above referred to is interesting as indicating the deep resentment aroused outside Labour circles by the land tax proposals of the Federal Government: ,

Labour senators, like Labour Ministers, know in their hearts what is realised by everyone who looks squarely- at the taxiThat its burden is heaviest where its effect 'upon settlement is least likely to be felt; that it ."smashes" tho poor estates much more savagely than the rich; that it penalises useful investment worse than it penalises land monopoly; that its treatment of' mortgagees is indefensibly .unjust; that in burdening citv and rural lands alike it commits a glaring absurdity; that its penalties are abhorrent to reason and justioo. Not one of these charges can successfully bo denied, and tho only reply made to them is to abuse "landlordism," and to assume that the mere ownership of land is a crime. Tho spirit animating many Labour senators is even narrower and fiercer than that of members of tlie other. House. They look to tho huge block voto cast.by.men and women for the most part unfamiliar with the conditions of,land settlement and tho principles of taxation, and "they 'will'not assunio tho responsibility of putting the tax into a form less unjust, for fear some vindictive cry should bo raised against them. There were. Labour members in' the House of Representatives who could not refrain from declaring tho cruelty of parts of the Bill, but similar plnck has ' therto been wanting in Labour senators.

This is a very strong and bitter indictment.

It 'is ,a little surprising that no mention has bepn made in the House of Representatives of the charge levelled against tho Government in connection with .the .purchase of the Flaxbourne Estate. In presenting this charge to the Committee of Inquiry, Mr. Myers, counsel for Me. Hine, maclo_ it perfectly clear that the allegation wae not against the Hon. T. K. Macdonald, but against the Government. It was. pointed out during the discussion,in the House of Boprcsentatives on the question of whether tho charges snould bo investigated by Judges or a. Committee of members that at the time no names had beeri given in connection with tho charges. That as a result some member of the Committee of Inquiry might later on find himself on trial before the Committee of which he was a member. This was one of the arguments put forward in favour of submitting the whole matter to a tribunal apart from politics. The only possible answer to this contention was that should any member of the Committee find himself in the position stated he would naturally retire from the Com-, mitteo. This, as a matter of fact, was the answer given. Now the position anticipated has actually arisen. Mr. Hike's allegation in respect of the Flaxbourne Estate directly charges the Government with a commission transaction of an improper kind. One member of the Committee was a member of the Government referred to. It would be manifestly wrong for him to sit in judgment during the hearing of this charge. But more than that, we cannot see how, in tho circumstances, his continuance on the Committee at all can be justified. We should have the extraordinary situation of a member of the Committee sitting for a portion of the time as a Judge; then leaving his seat on the Bench to appear as a defendant in one of the charges being investigated; and afterwards returning to the_ Bench ;■ to'.again act with thoso sitting _ in judgment on him. What sort of justice would this be 1 Surely there can bo no question as to tho impropriety of such procedure ? ■ Possibly tho Prime Minister has not looked at the matter in this light, but ho has had ample time to think it over, for the charge was made as far back as October 29.