NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1069, 7 March 1911, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

It is a well-established axiom of government that every .arbitrary attempt to alter the natural conditions of industry is followed by unexpected and undesirable consequences. Sometimes the gains outweigh the losses; move frequently the balance is on the wrong fide. An excellent example of the concealed potentialities of nice-looking legislation is attracting some attention in Great Britain. _ One of the leading British .authorities on'mining subjects has

written to the London Times to the effect that the recent Eight Hour Act is largely responsible for the rapid increase in the number of fatal mining accidents in Britain', Nearly 1700 men were killed last year.

"Wc are going from bad to worse (says this authority). We' shall continue to do so as long as ouv puliticians and statcsini'ii continue their blundering policy of far too in itch mining legislation in a wrong direction, a'ld far ton little in a right one. As a matter of hard fact the State is very largely to blame for the mischief. For example, our Parliament, misled by labour leaders, passes an Eight Hour Act which cannot help but resultis already resulting—in a huge increase of t.eeidents. This measure means the elimination of the aged, experienced, and cautious pitman; it means preference for young, inexperienced, and reckless men; it means the acceleration of haulage and windage; it means the goading on of the miners; it mean.* the scamping of repair work; and it moans a serious multiplication of dangers, accidents, and disasters." These are results, of course, of a kind almost peculiar to this particular industry. But the community always has to pay in one way or another whenever some arbitrary law is passed by the "reformers" whose schemes are basc:l upon the fallacy that the enlargement of wealth and prosperity is only a matter of restrictive legislation.

The American public's of the Trusts is inclining it to look with_ approval upon the idea of municipal ownership and operation of public utilities, and the question is a good deal discussed in the American press nowadays. But while they have been learning the harmfulness of monopoly, the American people have been learning also the evil of local political combines, and the wisest friends of municipal management arc inclined to fancy that, unless some necessary safeguards are provided, nothing will be gained, but very much lost, by the adoption of that system. A correspondent of the New York Post has put forward a scheme which he thinks_ will meet the objection that municipal ownership and operation of public utilities would result in building up "the strongest political macnine over known in city government." Why not, he asks, establish conditions so that would-bo political machine builders might be laughed to scorn, and public servants, i.e., municipal employees, would really be servants of the city, instead of forming a cog in seme boss's machine '?■

My 'remedy (he proceeds) would be to disfranchise all general utilities employees, such as on transportation lines, • riter works, etc., from ■ superintendent to car cleaner, while they remained in the city's employ, and have them enter such employ linder civil service rules, with liberty to resign on thirty davs' notice, and subject to discharge only for cause upon proved chargn;. For and in consideration of surrender of franchise such employees to bo exempt from jury and other duties, similar to our regular soldiers (officers and privates), and to ho allowed to retire after a certain length of service on a pension, and pay also to be gradually increased with length of service and proficiency shown. One of tho causes for dismissal from tho service should be activity in politics, subscribing to political campaign funds, etc. Surely, it would be a Godsend to honest workers not to have to givo a thought to "null." The soundness of this proposal will be admitted by every honest person, but it is one which could not bo advocated in this country at present with even the slightest hope of success. ""' " •'' ""'■'"'

Hutt ratepayers will be called on to cast their votes to-morrow for or against the Borough Council's proposal to borrow £10,000 to complete the drainago and sewerage scheme of _ the borough. The readiness which local bodies have shown in recent times to rush into debt for public services of various kinds has provoked a good deal of adverse comment from hard-headed citizens, and in a great many cases there is no doubt that the strictures passed have been well deserved. But while we sympathise fully with those who object to the spirit of extravagance which has gripped so large ft section of our local governing bodies, it would be foolish indeed to go to the other extreme. In the case of the Hutt Borough, for instance, this- proposed new loan for drainage and sewerage, while it may appear an unpleasant necessity, is still a necessity. Indeed, as tho Mayor showed in his address to tho ratepayers a few evenings ago, the loan is essential to the satisfactory completion of the work, to which the borough is already committed, and if the borough is to get the full benefit of the expenditure already- incurred, this further capital cost must be faced. Moreover, if the saving of £800 a year can be made, as stated by'the engineer, there is an additional incentive to bring the sewerage system into full operation at the earliest possible moment. If only as a business proposition, then, ratepayers will find it to their advantage to support the Council's proposal.

It has been a little amusing to note the cool fashion in which the Attorney-General has associated himself with his political chief as one of the "official" representativ.es of New Zealand at the Imperial Conference and the Coronation. We were told that Dr. Findlay's presence in England was required in connection with the Webster claim and certain Native land litigation; but tin Webster claim has been shelved and the Attorney-General has blossomed ■ out as a full-blown official delegate. It may strike manypeople as curious that the only member of tin Cabinet who has failed to secure at the ballot-box the confidence of the people and the privilege of representing them in Parliament should be thus thrust on them as their representative at the forthcoming celebrations in London. It is one of the ironies of democratic government that one of the people's representatives on such an occasion should be the nominee of a clique, and not the elected of the people. But we have grown seasoned to these sort of things. What we are not quite so hardened to is such actions as that of the Prime Minister in presuming to treat an invitation to the Legislature of New Zealand as an invitation only to members of the House of Representatives. So far as wo are aware, no members of the Legislative Council were asked whether they would care to accept the. invitation from the Joint Committee of the House of Lords and House of Commons, to be their guests in London at the Coronation. It will be noted that the invitation came from a Joint Committee of both Houses to the Legislature of New Zealand. Apart from the fact that the "Legislati.rc" necessarily includes both Houses of Parliament, the further fact that the invitation came from both Houses of Parliament in Britain should have been sufficient to have indicated to Sir Joseph Ward that members of the Upper House wore included. Wc had limuvl that wlvn the matter was

pointed out to him by us some clays ago the Prime Minister would attempt to repair his omission; or that Dr. Findlay, as Leader of the Upper House, would enter some protest against the slight placed upon his fellow-members. Nothing of the kind ha-; happened. Wc are informed to-day that the invitation has boon declined by Sir Joseph "Ward on behalf of the Dominion Parliament as only one member \va3 able to accept it. Perhaps it is fitting that the thing should end in this way. Sir Joseph Ward, after all, is the House of Representatives, and Dr. Findlay is the Legislative Council.