NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1157, 19 June 1911, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

MiNiSTEits arc to be commended upon their decision not to reverse their confirmation of the sentence of death passed upon the young Maori Taiii Kaka; No doubt they will be sharply criticised by the minority who have been so active during the past few days, but they can count upon tho support of the majority oi tiiosc whose support is best worth having. The rightness or wrongnessof capital punishment was not the issue. The issue was whet the case was a proper one for the application of the law as it stands, and on this point there can be no doubt. How many of the protestants, we wonder, have reflected what their success would have meant? It ■would have meant that neither the law nor the Supreme Court had any real supremacy—that given a vigorous enough agitation by a comparatively few people any decision by a Court, or any law, could be set aside. It would have established a small section of the public as tho Court of Appeal. Ministers have been faced with a painful task, and it is to their credit that their sense of public duty has, on this occasion, impelled them to take a course which, unpleasant though it may be, is best calculated to serve the public interest.

We are afraid that the Hon. T. Mackenzie was not so happy as lie would doubtless like to think in his reply to the Blenheim deputation that waited on him on Wednesday. It_ will be remembered that he replied to the request for a new post office by saying that the Government's, intention would not be declared until it was made manifest in the Public Works Estimates. He delivered an extremely odd political harangue to the astonished deputation and defended his attitude by saying that if he promised the post ollke he would be accused of bribing the district, while if he refused it he would be accused of penalising it. This was really very absurd, but wc expect Ministers nowadays to misrepresent the criticisms directed at them. Unfortunately for Mn. Mackenzie, 'it is quite immaterial at what data before the election the Government's decision is made known. Unfortunately, also, for his. professions of good intentions and his posture of scrupulous discretion, Ministers keep on going about the country telling the electors the preposterous story that unless they support the borrowing party public works must stop. They imply that the only alternative to loans of £6,850,000 in a year is no loan at all, and imply also that it is impossible to do anything through economy. But we need not dwell on this point just now, since we shall have abundant occasion to discuss it between now and December. What we would point out here is the significance of the dihmma stated by Mr. Mackenzie—the dilemma between appearing to bribe a district and appearing to penalise it. It is a dilemma inherent in the existing system of public works administration. It cannot be avoided, as Mn. Mackenzie would suggest, by postponing its reappearance. The only remedy is the destruction of the present vicious system of Ministerial control and the establishment of nonpolitical control. But does the Government favour that? No; it prefers the dilemma for the sake of the power of patronage and corruption in the present system.

e It is instructive to notice the s shifts to which the -Ministerialist 3 supporters arc reduced in their 1 struggle to retain public support, f Mr. Geo. Laurenson, for example, 1 the member for Lyttelton, delivered 3 a speech in his electorate the other t night, and took occasion to refer to 3 Mr. Hike's charges and to Mr. j Jajies Allen's condemnation of the i enormous fees paid by the Govern- - ment to the Chief Justice. Most ; people recognise now that Mr. Hine I rendered a public service in doing ; his duty of exposing Mr. Symes's ! misuse of his position as a member I of Parliament. But not so Mr. ; Laurenson. He said that "in rei gard to the case in which a man ; named Lyzett (sic) was written to ! for commission by Mr. Syjies, M.P., i the action of that man in handing i that letter to Mr. Sy.mes's political opponents was entirely despicable, and theusc of such evidence by the Opposition and its continued reiteration were discreditable to that party." It does not matter to Mr. Laurenson that it led to the exposure of a grave abuse that Parliament felt constrained to condemn. He ended his speech by some lofty aspirations concerning a race of "high-minded" men. May we ask this high-minded gentleman whether

his high mind, were he in Mr. Hike's position, would have urged him to suppress the evidence of a serious political ulcer ? It is a question his constituents might put to him. Nobody will be surprised, after this, to learn that Mr. Laurenson told the Woolston audience that "because Sir Rorert Stout had declared that no grounds for legal action were disclosed in the Hixe charges, be was abused and vilified by the Opposition." This distortion is worthy of the member for Lvttolton. Sir Robert Stout was abused and vilified by nobody. He was censured for having made certain

uncalled-for comments on the facts alleged, and afterwards proved, by Mr. Hike—comments that were sininle mis-statements of fact. The public will realise very clearly the nature of the case that requires such a defence as that of the member for Lyttclton.