NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1167, 30 June 1911, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

_Ix another column we print an uncommonly interesting contribution to the controversy over the Government's action in paying some large fees to the Chief Justice for extrajudicial work. This is a statement from Sir. Fkedemck Pollock, P.C., LL.D., the very distinguished jurist and editor of the Law Quarterly Review. So many inaccurate suggestions as to the British practice have been put forward by the defenders of the New Zealand Government and Sib Uobeut Stout that it is particularly satisfactory to have a statement from an authority that can admit of no question. Sin Frederick Pollock's fame is worldwide as a profound lawyer, and there is no other British jurist of greater distinction, or any one, jurist or statesman, whose opinion on grave public questions of law is accounted of greater weight than his. The British opinion is implied in the .British practice, and Sir Fkedbeick Pollock is unable to. remember any case of an English High Court J, edge being paid specially for extra-official work performed by him. His secretary w.as careful to emphasise this point, and to treat as an entirely distinct and irrelevant matter the point whether Judges have been paid for service on international commissions. Any case of the latter kind that may be cited in the vain hope of finding any justification for the parties to the transaction criticised by Mr. James Allen is so irrelevant as to bo useless even for obscuring the issue. Special notice is due to Sir Frederick Pollock's opinion that the salaries of Judges "would probably be considered to allow a margin for any small extra services rendered to the country." The whole theory of judicial salaries is that they shall have such an amplitude as this, in order that Judges may be placed above the necessity of receiving any gift at anybody's hands. But, after all, we feel sure that the case against any repetition of the Government's action has' already been so well established that neither the Chief Justice nor the Government is in the least likely to offend again. This is a good thing to have achieved, and the credit for its achievement must be given to Mr. Allen.

Iγ is with some pleasure that we direct attention to a political outbreak on the'part of pur lively contemporary The Spike, otherwise known as the Victoria, College lieview. Much of what is said in the article in question has been said before on many occasions, but The Spike makes its. points in its own particular way—and they arc sharp points:

The majority of our members of Parliament (it says) are men of very meagre education.' Plain Bill Jones who informs tho electors quite- unnecessarily that ho will always remain Plain Bill Jones, and who looks with tho greatest contempt on tno garnered wisdom of older countries, is generally regarded as the man host suited to guide the footsteps of our infant nation. One of tho least bad results of this belief will have been realised to the full by anyone who has had the misfortune to bo obliged to study the pages of Hansard. There are numerous men in Parliament who are incapable of making a logical aiyl intelligible, speech. There aro very lew. who, having made any special study of economics, history, legislation, arc able to give ideas to thoir more ignorant brc\ rhren and to illumine the sometimes super-Totarean darkness of Parliament Chamber.

All of which is very true, and is made the peg, or the spike, on which to hang an appeal to university men to take a more active part in the politics of the country. The university man who tries and fails to win the support of tho people on his first essay is advised not to'be discouraged "for he can at least rest assured that it was not lack of brains that kept him out of Parliament," which, if it sounds a little severe on members of Parliament, has at any rate the justification afforded by the columns of Hansard. This excursion of The Spike into the realms of politics should be welcomed. It claims, in concluding its comments, that while education will not make a man perfect, it will make the honest legislator better able to carry out his object, namely, the advancement of the well-being of his fellow citizens. We badly need some "honest legislators" with this "object" in New Zealand to-day.

In Auckland on Monday the Hon. G. Fowlds delivered a sort of sermon upon Christianity in politics. He took an early opportunity to give a practical exposition of the spirit of Christianity in political controversy, for on Tuesday he delivered a speech at Stratford to cheer up his friends in that district. In the course of his speech, as reported in the Government's local newspaper, ho said this:

What did Mr. Massey do in regard to the famous, or infamous, Black pamphlet? Never once did he repudiate or condemn something which was benefiting the party, until tho matter was brought up in Parliament by Mr. T. E. Taylor, and there was danger of discredit attaching to his jiarty through his neglect to dissociate himself from it.

We should like to ask: What did Me. Fowlds himself do prior to the discussion in the House ? He did nothing. Wo should like to know his reason. It would he easy to impute motives; but we prefer to think simply that ho did not wish to advertise the pamphlet and hurt his chief's feelings. Is it not possible to the pure and lofty mind of Me. Fowlds to fancy that Mk. Massey remained silent for the same reason ] We had thought such an eloquent preacher upon Christianity in politics might be capable of that small charity. But Christianity means not the same to all hearts. To Mr. Fowlds it would seem to carry the lesson that the highest duty of the Christian statesman is, whore a political opponent is concerned, to explain as the product of combined turpitude and cowardice what less highly spiritualised people imagined was the result of simple decent feeling. Mr. Fowlds implies that Mr. Massey was not sincere in his denunciation of the pamphlet, and that ho would not have denounced it had he thought ho could profit by abstaining from denunciation. Mr. Fowlds, we arc pleased to think, is pot likely to find much support in holding this gallant and generous belief. What would Mil. Fowlds have said had Mr. Massey publicly denounced the pamphlet as soon as he heard of it? Is it not fair to assume, after his explanation of Mr. Marsey's actual procedure, that he would have said: "Mil. Massey pretends to denounce this pamphlet, but really his object is to make capital out of it by advertising it." Is this "Christianity in politics"'! Is this the charity. o£ Me. Fowlds 1