NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1198, 5 August 1911, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

We are indebted to Me. A. S. Malcolm, M.P., for tho courteous and interesting letter, printed in another column, in which he strongly dissents from our articlc of yesterday upon "The .Federalist. l r olly." But his arguments leave us indisposed to modify our views in the smallest particular. We havo space here only to run briefly over his main points, and the first thing to be said js that in seeking to establish a likeness between tho relation of Marlborough to the rest of New Zealand and the relation of, say, Canada to the rest of the Empire, ho has taken no account of those powerful factors peculiar to tho second namely, tho national and economic factors. So, also, he quotes the caso of America as a reply; to our contention that history is against the Federationists. As a matter of fact wo had America specially in our mind when we wrote that particular sentence. The vital difference between tho British Empire on the one hand and Mr. Malcolm's example on tho othjr (Canada, America, Germany, and and he might have added Australia) is that the British Empire is not a solid block of territory, but a widely scattered, ocean-sundered group of countries, and that the 'Empire is a group of distinct nations, which eveiw one of the other examples i 3 not. Our main' contention was directed at a definite statement of Mr. Maicolji's that Fciliration is necc?«ary to prevent disruption coming through State and national rights. We urged that if such rights are disruptive in tendency Federation can only hasten disruption. Against this it. is urged that America supplies a contradiction of our view. If Mr. Malcolm is right as to his facts—and we do r.ot admit that he is—the obvious conclusion is that the "State rights" that were troublesome there were not in csscnce disruptive. Our correspondent begs tho question altogether when he says: "In a liberally constituted Federation tho very wish to disrupt disappears," and leaves himself open to the reply that the present system is the only "liberally constituted Federation" that meets the case. It is not quite a fair statement of our position to say that we take the stand that "what has been will be"; but we think we could quite well conduct our case on that basis. For the onus is upon Mr. Malcolm and the other Federalists to prove that "what has been will no more be." Not one of them has ever seriously tried to prove that, and tho proof of it is at c\cry point essential to the Federalist case.

In the Legislative Council yesterday the Hon. J; E. Jenkinson, for all that ho is a good party man, spoke with great .frankness upon sonic matters in which the Welling* ton public is perhaps only more keenly interested than the people in other parts of the Dominion. He had annroval for Mit. Kennedy MacDONAii> r s resignation of his seat in the Council, pointing out that in resigning, which was quite a voluntary iict Jin- Jlacuonat.d had recognised the'state of public opinion. He went on to sav that there was another Councillor whose resignation the Council would like to see. The reference is obvious enough, but Mn. Jenkinson' mentioned no names, let the Acting-Speaker pulled him up. It is significant that in his reference to the Coronation honours MR. Jenkinson was unable to say more in defence of Sm J- G. Waito'sacceptance of a baronetcy than that "he would do his work as well as a baronet a» .a K.C.M.Cj. . \\o afraid that is hardly, the point, Ab

to Sin J. G. Findlay, Mr. Jenkinson thought that his acceptance of a knighthood was a pity, and that lie had not fully earned it. Really, the two title-hunters will find much to think about in the opinions of the Liberal newspapers and Liberal politicians. If Mr. CARNttooss, the Act-ing-Speak:r, in his passionate zeal for the parlv that put him where lie is, had not cut short Mil. Jenkinson we should probably have had some really stimulating comment by a democrat upon our arch-democrats' affront to their party's feelings.

In the August issue of the Bail- \ way Officer? Advocatc appears an ; appeal to members of the railway service to be loyal to "the scrvicc. The article is remarkable ehieily for the fact that there should bo any necessity for such an appeal to be made. This is explained by tho Advocatc: (Jiuloubtediy, it says, the happenings of tho past three years have been sufficient to strain their [tho officers of tho railway service! feeling of loyalty to tho management of the service to tllo utmost. Promotion lias vanished from the face of the railway earth, and as a result many officers who a few years ago looked with confidence for early advancement in their profession are to-da.v disappointed and discontented men, whoso loyalty to their service is the only guarantee the service has that they will honestly and faithfully give of their best in its interests. . . . The management' of the railway service seems to bo quite indifferent as to what tlie final result on the loyalty of tho staff will be, and appears to view with equanimity the prospect of having to maintain ail overincreasing service at a proper pitch of efficiency and in safe working order, whilst manned—as it surely some day will bo if the present conditions of service aro allowed to continue—witli a staff of officers whoso sense of loyally to their Department is in direct proportion to their Department's loyalty to them. Signs of a decline in the standard set by members of the First Divison of the railway rervice in regard to their duty to tho Department are already to be seen. It is significant that the official journal of the Now Zealand Railway OffiC3rs' Institute should feel called on to write in this strain, and still more significant that it is a sequel to constant complaints against the treatment of railway employees extending over a very long period. Mn, Millab surely cannot go on for ever ignoring this state of things. The closing of the debate on the Addrcss-in-Reply in the House of Representatives will occasion no regrets. Some of _ the speeches made havo not beej without interest, but most of them were merely in the nature of electioneering addresses, and more suited to the hustings. It is a little surprising,_ however, that the Acting-Prime Minister should have remained silent. Ho was ready enough, in replying to Mr. Massey respecting the Mokaju transaction, to state that he woufd deal with the complaints made, but apparently he thought better of it, and allowed the debate to pass without, speaking. Later, however, he intimated that he would deal with the Mokau question in the form of a paper to be laid beforo Parliament. It is quite cvidont from this that Mit. Carroll realises that the action of tho Government requires very careful explanation. a fact which no doubt is already abundantly clear to the public. Wc have not tho least doubt as to the line that will be taken and the reasons that will bo put forward as having actuated the Government in this matter. It will be suggested that the extraordinary course adopted was, the, only means, of sct- • tling' the long-standing dispii£e'"concerning tho Mokau lands and getting the land thrown open for settlement. That the freehold of this large block of land was not sold l by the Natives, but only the right to sell ' tho land in small areas. This quibble ; has already been exposed, and Mr. Massey has shown how the Govern- - ment could havo overcome any difficulties in the way of the Govcrnment taking over and settling the | land itself. "We expect to see the ! Acting-Prime Minister play for time ' now. It is pretty plain that ho is confronted with a more awkward situation than he anticipated, and ! will probably find it necessary _ to await tho return of his political [ chief before permitting the investiga- ; tion into the transaction which a i week or two ago he treated in such a ' cavalier fashion. It is quite amus- , ing in its way to note the helpless-. ! ness of tho Ministry in the absence , of Sir Joseph Ward. They havo : been so long in leading-strings that ! they cannot rely on themselves in the . absence of their mer.tor.