NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1132, 20 May 1911, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

With the more foolish of the Ministerialist newspapers endeavouring, by sheer noise, to cbowu Me. James Allen's quiet censure of the Government's tampering with tho founts of justice, and with Mr. Fowlds (who in 1908 strove to thwart Parliament's decision to give some underpaid teachers the monstrous sura, in some cases, of £15 ail at once) defending the payment of the "paltry" amount of several thousand pounds to the Chief Justice, it is a relief to find one Ministerialist paper of standing that is not lost to all decency in the matter. In an editorial on Wednesday the Dunedin Star, while refusing to believe the Chief Justice "capable of being influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by considerations so discordant with judicial propriety," yet says: "We readily associate ourselves with his [Mr. Allen's] plea for a more scrupulous observance of the great principle of maintaining and safeguarding the independence of the judiciary." "As regards the general principle," it says also, "Mr. Allen is on firm ground," and it adds:

Even in respect to tho special instance we are bound to say that the Government and the Chief Justice blundered badly in respectively offering and accepting "exceptional payment for tho commission work. Admitting that Sir Robert Stout did admirable service as Chairman of tho Native _ Lands Commission, the fact remains that he was receiving his salary as Chief Justice all tho timevirtually without performing the duties of that office—and it was a shock to the country to learn that he was to receive double payment for a single class of work. . . . Even if Sir Robert had been able to combine his ordinary judicial work with his labours on tho Commission, the double payment would have been improper.

The Star concludes by hoping "that there will be no further tampering" with the principle insisted upon by Me. Allen. When it is remembered that the Star is a loyal supporter of the Ministry, it will be allowed that Mr. Allen could hardly have a stronger defence of his criticisms than its admission that the Government and' the Chief Justice cither despite or are ignorant of a priii-

ciple that is the very salt of justice, the main preservative- of clean judicial administration. The payment was, as the Star says, a shock to the country, and it is only natural that the country should look for the true significance of it.

It was reported in a cable message last week that in Melbourne tho Full Court had upheld an injunction restraining tho ringing of the bell of a certain church in Caulfield before 9 a.m. on Sundays and Holy Days. The full reports to hand by mail will disappoint those who had hoped that the Court had gone very deeply into the question. There was much interesting discussion between Bench and Bar, as one might suppose. The right of the Salvation Army to beat a big drum in the street on Sunday mornings cropped up; motor-horns were mentioned; reference was made to an English decision—surely an infamous one—that "the playing of a piano for 17 hours a day, plus singing, practising and occasional musical evenings, with a son practising tho violoncello at 11 p.m., should not be restrained." The Chief Justice said it was generally admitted that an increasing cause of insanity was want of sleep. This was all very instructive and suggestive, but when it came to giving a decision the Court shirked all the issues that those who were interested in the case had hoped would be faced. All it did was to uphold an old decision that the inconvenience which the law would protect against must not be ono of more fastidiousness, but must be founded on the "plain, sober, simple notions known amongst English people." In effect: the complainant was a reasonable person, and really lost sleep through the early bells, and the bells were therefore a public nuisance. _ Nobody will over take the question to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but we allow ourselves to believe that that august tribunal would not banish the early morning church-bell in this shopkeeper fashion. Perhaps it might banish it: tho spirit of the age is against everything that supposes any virtue in old custom, against everything that gives a status to tho Past; but if old convention and ■ Christian romance are to bo condemned, it would be a comfort to have them condemned with the consideration and formality due to their estate.

The decision of the Dublin Corporation that a loyal address shall not bo presented to the Kino and Queen on the occasion of their visit has provoked some interesting comment in the Irish • press. The corporation's decision is due of course to the pressure of the Sinn Fein Society, which insisted upon and obtained from the Lord Mayor three written pledges against an address. The decision of the corporation was carried by 42 votes to 9. The. Irish Independent suggested that the -12 believed their action would further the interests of Homo Utile, and added that they would probably find that they had erred. The Irish Times explained that it was not true that all the Nationalist members of the corporation were unwilling to give the Kixo and Queen an official welcome to Dublin. "It is well known," it said, "that a substantial majority of the councillors arc,'willing,, and even anxious, to present'an ad-' dress, but their courage is feebler than their sense of courtesy." They fear the Sinn Fein; and it is a very serious fact that their fear of this seditious organisation over-bore, their loyalty. One of the Nationalist agents now touring New Zealand has repeatedly offered an explanation that really makes matters worse. Ho says that Ireland will bo loyal when it has something to bo loyal for. Surely, if they do not want separation, Irishmen must admit that King Geoeoe has nothing : .to do with the withholding of Home Rule. In the course of its article the Irish Times has some observations of special interest to New Zealand. "It may not have occurred," it says, "to the forty-two eminent patriots that their conduct has made impossible the promised visit from the four colonial Premiers. These high representatives of his Majesty's Dominions beyond the seas must now find that they have no use for a welcome which has been refused to their King." It will be interesting to watch the attitude Sir Joseph Ward takes up.