NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1227, 8 September 1911, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

We had occasion some time ago to congratulate the Legislative Council upon having acted wisely by throwing out tho Field Divorce Bill—a measure proposing that tho law of divorce that binds everyone else should be suspended in favour of one particular person. Yesterday the sponsor of the Bill, aided by the Attorney-General, succeeded in having it reinstated by 11 votes to S. It is deplorable, and a powerful proof of tho need for an early reform of the Council, that members should thus stultify themselves. The Council ought to have considered itself bound to reaffirm its earlier decision in any case, and especially bound to do so becauso that decision was a wise veto of a peculiarly noxious infraction of sound legislative principles. Yet it broke its bonds.

The failure of the Government to purchase the Hautotara Estate near Martinborough for closer settlement purposes is provoking comment in the Wairarapa just now. The member for the district and others have urged the Government to purchase this estate of somo IS,OOO acres to provide farms for settlers and the sons of settlers in the Wairarapa and elsewhere, but Atinistcrs have neglected the opportunity to do so. In reply to a question put to him by Mk. Buchanan,in Parliament last session Sir Joseph Ward gave the curt answer: "It is not proposed to enter into any negotiations at present for the purchase of the Hautotara- Estate." As the elections'came nearer the attitude of the Government changed somewhat, and it talked of .purchasing the property. But while it has been dallying a private syndicate has stepped 'in and secured this fine estate apparently with a view to subdivision, although this at present does not appear to be quite certain. We do not know the price paid, but according to the Wairarapa Standard tho Government could have secured the estate at the price paid for it by the syndicate. Now, in case of subdivision, settlers will have to pay the middleman's profit on the transaction, which is not altogether a pleasant thing for would-be settlers seeking land to contemplate.

It is rather amusing to note that in his outburst in connection with the article published by the Government's advertising agents in London in the fVeslmiii-slcr Gazelle, Slit Joseph Waiid ran foul of a devoted newspaper supporter, to wit, the LyllLltm Times. The comments of our Ministerial contemporary in question read very _ muintly when set side by side with the Pimm

Minister's angry insistence that the sentiments of the paragraph sunplied to the Gazette were too silly for words and his suggestion that tho whole tiling was <i piece of "back-stabbing" or something of the sort. The Christehurch paper rather approves of the "It is not easy to see, it says, in what respect The Dominion found it staggering, and it goes through tho paragraph item by item giving its endorsement to the various statements, but stopping short in its approval at the declaration that three million immigrants arriving to-mor-row would find ample work. Even this, however, it seeks to defend, and it says that the phrase is simply a sort of interpretation of "the High Commissioner's buoyant optimism." Wc may now leave the Prime Minister to carry on the controversy with his Christehurch ally. Whether ho should apologise to the Lyttcltoii Times for lumping it with the fools, or whether it should apologise to him for writing before it knew what he wished it to say, is a question that wc cannot decide. Wc can only wait and see.

The view of the New York Eveninij Post upon tho recent naval agreement between Britain, Australia, and Canada is rather interesting. The Post considers that the agreement "strikes a heavy blow at the main contention of the Chamberlain party." Englishmen, it says, have been assured for years that nothing but preferential tariffs can save the Empire from disruption, "and 10, the colonics find a rallyingpoint in tho old idea of common defence." _ Our" contemporary, of course, is strongly opposed to tariffmongering and in all its forms, but in this matter it is probably expressing what it usually expresses—the best thought of America. Its conclusion is that although "this manifestation of loyalty and union has not behind it any guarantee that can be measured in tariff percentages," yet "few will be found to doubt that it rests on a foundation deeper than that." It is strange that a fact so obvious to intelligent and friendly outsiders should be doubted by any members of the family.