NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 991, 5 December 1910, Page 6

NOTES OF THE DAY.

On Saturday we commented briefly upon tho remarkable and dangerous amendment to the Libel Bill which was introduced by tho AttorneyGeneral and agreed to on Friday. We have nothing to add to what we then said, excepting to advise the public,' when its viciousness becomes manifest, to remember the circumstances of its introduction. Our object just now is to call attention'to tho comments of tho Lyttelton Times, always a strong and determined ally of the Ministry and just now specially anxious to bo zeaious in friendship. Even the Lyttelton Times is unable to approve tho amendment. After referring to it as "a proposal to clothe magistrates with quite extraordinary . powers," our contemporary proceeds: We sympathise no less warmly than members of Parliament do with the Prime Minister in tha shameful wronpts ho lias suffered, but we are bound to say tliat wo view this particular expression of their feeling with some uneasiness. The magistrates of tho country have not all shown themselves fully qualified to bear the new responsibility that has been thrown upon them, and we should have been better pleased if it had been entrusted, as Sir. Massey suggested, to a Judge of the Supremo Court. Probably it was a fear that his persistence might bo misunderstood that prevented tho Lender of the.Opposition pressing his suggestion further, but we are sure that if the position had been more deliberately considered some means of achieving tho desired end would have bc-en discovered without mating such a' radical chango in ouf judicial system. The final sentence in this passage is worth a word or two of comment. There is not tho least doubt that Mr. Massey would have been vilified and misrepresented from one end of the country to the other by Ministerialist speakers and writers had he pressed strongly against the amendment. This is a permanent handicap upon Mr. Massey and his colleagues, and it is a handicap that is not suffered by Mr. Hassey's opponents. ' Somo of Mr. Massey s friends, we know, grow restive now and then at his refusal to adopt the tactics of his opponents; but his policy is the best in the long run. A Ministerialist may say in tho House whatever ho pleases, knowing that the worst that will bo said of him by the Opposition will be directed only at his intelligence or independence. Mr. Massey and his colleagues, on tho other hand, are not safo_ from base attack even when tho disinterestedness and honourablcness of thoir motives arc as plain as a pikestaff. In this connection, we spay note that the Prime Minister, although member after member on tho Opposition side had expressed their abhorrence of the pamphlet of which so much has been heard, not only failed to make acknowledgment of tho generous outspokenness of his opponents, . but made no protest against the attemptof his followers to do their best to fasten the responsibility 'for this book on the Opposition. We should like to have the Attorney-General's opinion on the chivalry of his chief in this matter. . It does not seem necessary to comment on the 'debate which took place in the ' House of' Representatives on Saturday on the Coronation arrangements. As wo indicated would bo tho case a few days ago Dr. Findlay. is to accompany Sir Joseph Ward to England. Tho absurd excuse is put forward that the Webster claim and the Te Akau Block dispute are reasons why the Attorney-General should go to England. The Webster claim, it will be remembered, was the excuse put forward for Dr. Fit(shett to accompany Sir Joseph Ward to Englandlast year. _We really think some more plausible reason might have been suggested in both cases. There svero certain, flights of oratory :abled out to us from London last pear as tho utterances of Sir Joseph Ward that read very unlike tho spe'cchmaking that the Prime Minister has accustomed us to hear, and ao doubt his inspiration came ihrough his opportunity for discourse with tho learned doctor on tho Somoward voyage. Dr. Findlay we should imagine capable of inspiring even higher flights, although ho icrtainly has a somewhat unfortun- , ito knack of striking a key not quite i n tune with the public ear. It must X) gratifying to the Attorney-Gcn-iral's friends to know that the elo- : juent presence of tho lcarpcd doctor : s indispensable to tho Parliament )f .New Zealand. Last year Sir : Coseph Ward was "indispensable" ; md Parliament could nvt sit in his I ibsence. It is now discovered that ] t is Dr. Findlay that is really in- ' lispensable, and the_ sitting of Par- 1 iament noxt year will be postponed 1 or a month to enablo him to make ,he Coronation trip. Probably it i rill be discovered next year that ' ll». Btodo, or Mr. R. M'Kenzie, ir someone elso in the Cabinet is : 'indispensable." But if Sir Joseph 5 Vard and Dr. Findlay are both j 'indispensable" to tho New Zealand 'arliament, who is to bo the new , ligh Commissioner in June next? ■ Many things happened during tho | ush of the final sitting of Parlia- t lent which, could the electors have eon them, would have cost many lembers their scats. Tho conditions 1 nder which the Public Works Es- j imates wero put through wcro j bout as discreditable to Parliament r s they well could be. Wo do not, i owever, propose to dwell on that 1 spect of things. Our purpose is t a place on record an open admis- s ion by a member of the Government t f tho uses to which jjublic works a ctcs are put—an admission which ® ■o venture to think is an outrage n political propriety and an unnswerable argument in favour of t; 10 removal of the control of public fi orks expenditure from the political v rena. During the discussion of cer- s lin votes Mr. Koss and Mr. Poland at at loggerheads with the Minis- J'. ir for Public Works, tho Hon. E. ['ICenzie. As a result tho mem?rs named proceeded to block the n ' stimates. They insisted that tho t] linister had answered certain ti icstions put to him and announced n: ieir intention to discuss the Esti- w atcs until ho did. The parties to N io dispute being very stubborn E en, business was delayed for scv- »; •al' hours. _Wo a!ro not concerned R 1 ith. the merits of the matter as boI'ecn tho Minister and his two' fol■we'vs, but with the sequel. -When ai ie particular votes, the subject of to ic had at last been *}! issod, the Minister rose and inti- y ated that ho' intended to teach tho i'Q 'members a lesson by sfcrikiae off Ci

- from the Estimates certain votes in - thsir respective districts for" roads. 0 Now, there is not the slightest doubt - on this point. These votes were put 3. on to Estimates by the Minister 2 himself. Why ? Presumably because they were required by tho settlers in tho districts in which they were to ' be carried out. And they were to bs struck out. Why? Simply because the two members, representing their districts, had a disagreement / with the Minister on quite ans other matter and had aroused 1 his anger. Tho unfortunate settlers - in these districts were to be favoured . or penalised at the sweet will 3 or sweet temper of the Minister, 2 and quite irrespective of their just 3 claims. In ono case tho vote was - struck out and but for the protest - made" others would have followed. ) Could there be a better proof of our i oft-repeated contention of the political uses to which public works t expenditure is put? Can anyone be--3 lievc, in face of tho facts disclosed i above, that public works expendi- : ture is carried out with tho single t purpose of serving the public inter-■ 3 est? Were not the members ' for Pahiatua and' Ohinemuri, and for the matter .of that ! the whole House, _ told as 3 plainly as it was possible to tell s them, that unless they bowed down ■' to the imperious will of the Minister 1 their constituents would be penalised t and'robbed of their just rights? Is > this in the-public interest?' Is this i how the public funds should be ! handled 1