NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1248, 3 October 1911, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

Although we shall have to wait a few weeks for particulars of the last round in the battle that ended the Canadian "Liberals' " long term of power, the reports of the first stages in the campaign arc coming to hand, and they are uncommonly interesting. In addition to the reciprocity issue there were other matters that largely contributed to the downfall of the "Continuous Ministry," nmch to the surprise of that Ministry, which was as confident of success as our own "Liberals" say they are. In his manifesto Mit. Border laid great stress on the enormous waste on a large railway project. The Government, he pointed out, had "twice refused any effective investigation of the expenditure" on this line, which was "assuming startling proportions"—a feature of railway construction expenditure that seems inevitable under long-established Liberal Ministries. Mr. Bouden also referred pointedly to the need for cleansing "the Augean_ stables of certain great spending Departments," and "the remarkable inefficiency and lack of business capacity manifested by the Government _ in connection with the Quebec Bridge and other great public undertakings." It is natural that such abuses should grow up under a Government which has held office continuously for many years, and natural that the gorge of the nation should rise at last. The London Morning Post's Ottawa correspondent declared that the election was "a Reciprocity election only in a limited sense," the administrative scandals being very important factors. One scandal is particularly interesting, as it has a real New Zealand flavour in its essentials. MR. Lanctot, a Liberal member, had his house painted by Government employees, and with Government stores, and the matter was brought up in the House by a member of the Opposition. The amount involved wan small—only £80—but it caused nn outcry, since it was evidently a glimpse into a very rotten state of things. When outcry was made Sin Wilfiud La-uiER was afraid to allow Mr. Lanctot to resign and 50 to a byelection. Instead, he did what will

not appear strange to New Zealand-' ers. ' He. remitted the matter to a Committee of the House, which of course whitewashed Mn. Lanctot, and—what will also not surprise New Zealanders, who remembor the "inquiry" into Mn. Hike's charges— actually censured the Opposition member who brought the matter up. This was jonl.v one of many incidents, the cumulative effect of which probably did more than anything else to'convince Canada that it should give the Continuous Ministry a shocking surprise by declaring for a change of Government. • The recent short-lived railway strike in England seems to have alarmed many people into advising that the. Government should cither nationalise the railways or establish industrial arbitration, but it is quite,certain that responsible statesmen ill Britain must and will reject both. these ideas. The Spectator points out the fundamental objection to coercive State regulation: If' two individuals quarrel about the ownership c.f a piece of laud or of any other form of property, tlic State can triiig irresistible i'orca'tq bear to compel the acceptance of its decision on the disputed point. ]ii iho caso of a labour dispute it cahnct in practice exercise foreo at all. That is why the attempts at compulsory arbitration which have been made in the Australasian colonics have so completely broltpu down. In the final retort iho Government finds itself face to face with the impossibility of sending 1000 or even 100 men to prison for refusing to abide by the arbitrator's judgment. Exeapfc n-hcTO slavery exists, wen cimnot bo compelled to- work' against their will. . . . Therefore if the Government pretended to establish a system of compulsory arbitration it still Wild not get rid of strikes. As .the experionco of New Zealand has abundantly proved,. As to the nationalising of the British railways, the. Spectator' notices a vital point. Supposing that the men struck, how could the Government replace them i This is a question that has not occurred to many of our local politicians with respect to our own State railways. State ownership of railways has some great advantages, but it has its great perils also.

In one of his first speeches .as a candidate for a seat in Parliament Me. F. M. B. Fisher told a story of tho red-tape methods in Government' Departments. A volunteer bearer corps in Christclmrch applied for six whistles, and after a great deal of correspondence as to the official to whom application should ba made, was informed that it could only apply for four whistles. They amended their application and sent it in, in the proper form, to the proper person. Everything was now in order, and tho Department was able to give a definite reply, which it did, to the effect that the Department had no whistles. That is an excellent illustration of the way in which the policy of centralisation works, and we arc reminded of it by some account in the Cape Arrjtix of the working of tho centralisation policy pursued by the Dutch-ridden Eotha Government in South Africa. The other day a young lady about to be married received her wedding dress through the parcels post from England. The Customs authorities considered it to be under-valued, but the recipient appealed, and asked that, as the wedding was to take place, the dress might in the meantime be released. The head of the local Customs refused to release the garment even against a guarantee, much as ho wished to, because he had to wait until lie was duly vested with special discretionary power from Pretoria. "In another caso," to quote the Arirux, "the cords i attached to some electric burners in a Government office in Cape Town required to be lengthened in order that, the clerks might be able to work by artificial light. The application could not bo dealt with, in the first instance, by the Jocal branch of the Public Works Department, but had to be addressed to the administrative capital. Pretoria referred it back to Cape Town for report, and there was a second reference to Pretoria before this 'new work' could be nut in hand." Even our own Government, keen as it is upon keeping the final authority in Wellington, and making even the central Department unable to move without the order of the Minister concerned, cannot often beat the South African Government's performances.