NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1366, 17 February 1912, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

Everybody, of course, will cut out his own special bit of the Governor's Speech to send Home to Punch, and tastes will differ, but it will be surprising if the favourite passage is not that consisting of the three paragraphs referring to industrial difficulties Everybody _ expects that "when the devil is sick the devil a .saint would be," but it is new to find him aiming'at being something rather more than a saint. That is why we love the idea of a "Commission of Industrial Investigation" to furnish "full and reliable information regarding the facts from which urgent social and industrial questions are now arising." It is as if a jerry-builder, seeing his chimney falling down and his walls bulging and gaping, were to seek to soothe his tenants by appointing a Commission to inquire into the laws of gravity. _ Everybody knows that the only possibly arguable clement of industrial trouble, namely, tho rise in the cost of living, is due to evil government : to wastefulness and increased consumption unaccompanied by a correspondingly increased production. How truly "Liberal," too, is the suggestion that the existence of Judge Snt_ caused "the labour troubles which have recently arisen in New Zealand," such as the tramwaymen's strike ! And how characteristic of "Liberal" policy and "Liberal" syntax alike is this paragraph, which we do not care to summarise, and which must be given in full in order that he who runs may marvel at it:

My Government linvp had under careful consideration, as a useful step towards industrial harmony, the promotion of voluntary profit-sharing, with a reasonable share for the employees in the business in which they aro employed in all suitable industrial enterprises, by means of a new system of Stato guaranty of the capital required by the workers, on condition that the workers and employers jointly indemnify the Stato against loss.

If this means anything, or is meant to mean anything—p to which nooody can feel sure—it means that the Government will advance money to some people on the understanding that any losses must be made good by other people altogether. And this is the sort of stuff that our pooi "Liberal" friends, fancy will earn them a reprieve.

It is difficult to understand the anxiety of the Christchurch Press to defend the appointment of Mr. James Hislop to the Under-Secre-taryship of Internal Affairs. The Christcnnrch paper leaves unanswered the two vital contentions in which we were supported by our local evening contemporary: (l) that by placing Mr. Hislop, nominally a member of the Railways staff, "in charge of another Department, the Government has inflicted a wrong on every member of that Department, and (2) that the Government, beaten and discredited, should not havo made any appointment of importance at all. Those contentions remain unquestioned and unquestionable. The Press insists on Mr. Hislop's qualifications for the position, which, being irrelevant, nobody has discussed, and it makes tho manifestly unwarrantable suggestion that nobody more suited for the position could be found in the whole Public Service. We are not disparaging Jin. Hislop, _ but merely paying a proper compliment to the many good men in the Civil Service, when we say that that suggestion is quite absurd. But the Press endeavours to find an analogy to the appointment of Mr, Hislop in the appointment of Mr. Vaugttan Nash, Mr. Asquith's private secretary, to the vicc-chairmanship of the Development Commission. There is no analogy. As Mr, Asquith's private secretary. Mr. Vauohax Nash did not draw a salary from tho State; Mr. Hist,op did draw a salary from tho 8t»i». Wjl. Vaijuw JJ/iph vnn a Gml Bemuji; ftta. JSjsww

was, and is. Mb. Vaughan Mash was not appointed to a Department in which men should advance by promotion; Mn. Hislop was so appointed. In fact, there is no likeness, but a vital difference, at every point. And even if it is a fact as stated by the Press—and we cannot allow that it is—that "it lias long been regarded as a reasonable and proper tiling for an English Prime Minister, cn the eve of laying down his high ofl'ice, to give a permanent appointment to his principal secretary," it does not follow that it is therefore a proper thing for a New Zealand Prime Minister to do the same thing in indefensible ' circumstances. We had better repeat, in conclusion, what we have said in earlier references to the matter, that we believe Mn. Hislop has well earned his popularity and is a capable and tactful man. But our quarrel is not with him; it is with the circumstances of his appointment, which are extremely bad, and which have > placed Mr. Hislop in a most invidious position.

The Prime Minister is evidently in a very bad way over that five million loan, which we are glad to remember we assisted to force into a public topic rather over a year ago. ITe presented the House yesterday with a confused and imperfect selection from the records of the transaction, in which the High Commissioner shows himself an apt disciple of the Wardist doctrine of confusing the issue. Last year the Prime Minister declared that the net return of the loan was £90 6s. Id. for every £100 bond issued. We asked at the time for particulars of the amount of the loan that was taken by investors as a short-term speculation. We are not even now told frankly and clearly how much of the loan has been snapped lip by people with money to invest for four years at jpur and a half per cent. For that is what we shall certainly have to pay for the bulk of the loan. The High Commissioner carefully avoids this point but he is forced to admit that the mere payment of the special bonus to those "who do convert reduces the net return to £95 16s. or nearly 10s. per cent, less than the £95 6s. Id. mentioned by the Prime Minister last year. It would seem that £1,684,G32 of the loan is held for conversion, and that the balance of £3,300,000 odd has been snapped up by investors who will preseijt their debentures for redemption in 1914. That is to say. we shall have to pay rather less than 3;} per cent, on one-third of the cash received, and over 4 per cent, on the other two-thirds. And the Prime Minister has the effrontery to maintain still that he scored a success.