NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 983, 25 November 1910, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

7 That the Legislative Council is too independent, and too much given to tearing up, or at- any rate amending drastically, the measures sent up to it by the House, is the last charge that we should have expected to see brought against that placid body. Yet this was a complaint seriously made in the House by Mil. Wilfoed yesterday. The occasion of his complaint was the treatment accorded by the Council to the Dentists Bill, but his charge was quite -general. We agree with Me. Wilford that fads—we would add, and folliesare more frequently indulged in by tho Council since X)u. F-indlay took over the leadership of it, but we havo no sympathy whatever with the frame of mind that wishes tlie House to "make a strong _ protest against the continual tinkering that went on in the Council in regard to legislation." In poin.t of fact, tho small esteem in which the Council, despite tho fact that many of its members arc sound and able legislators, is held by the public is duo to the neglect of tho Council to discharge its proper function of revising or rejecting undesirable Bills. : Nowhere is there a Second Chamber so hopelessly. under the thumb of the Government of the day; the majority of Councillors feel that as the .beneficiaries of tho Government it is their duty to do whatever the Government wishes them to do. The Council does do a little, to be sure, in theway of trifling amendments. Sometimes, however, it'makes a very good amendment.' But when lias the Council ever stood against a really bad Bill?. When has it ever rejected a bad principle advanced by the Government? We can understand a protest against silly amendments when they are made, but the very last thing that the Couneil can be reproached with is a tendency to show that it has a mind of its own and a willingness to assert itself in the public interest against noxious legislation.

We give to-day the' report which was presented to Parliament last night by the Conference between the managers appointed by the House of Representatives and the Legislative Council to consider the Council's amendments of the Gaming Bill. The gravity of the amendments to Clause 2—which were first noted by The Dominioh—was very quickly appreciated by the press and the public. The Conference has also recognised that the amendment did, as we suggested, make it more than doubtful whether the bookmaker would still bo able to ply his trade on the racecourses. It will be remembered that tho. Council struck out'the straightforward paragraph banning the' bookmaker from racecourses and substitufced_ a series of paragraphs one of which effected an inconsistency that* would certainly 'protect from tho essential penalty any bookmaker betting at a race meeting. The Conference's amendment meets quite fully just the point upon which we asked for rectification. Tho Attor-ney-General assured' tho Council last night that no trick had been intended, and we are content to abstain from discussion of tho point. Nor, the error having been expressly rectified, is there any occasion to notice the Attorney-General's suggestion that there was no error. While we are naturally glad that our criticisms havo had the desired effect, we cannot feel content with the Bill oven now. Since everybody excepting the 'bookmakers and Messrs. Millar, Carroll, Wilford, and Gloveh is agreed upon the proper treatment for tho bookmaker, it seems incomprehensible that the ' Government and Parliament should have',neglected to please the public and at the same time do_a wise and creditable thing by adding to the Bill a blunt declaration that the bookmaker's is an illegal calling, punishable like vagrancy and vaga- ■ bondage. That is a reform which we trust will come very soon. In tho meantime the Government will by everyone bo held responsible for any continuance of vitality, in this bad profession.