NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1376, 29 February 1912, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

Now that the temporary—or momentary—settlement of the first big ph&so of the political situation enables us to notice some of the political details that have had to stand over, we feel called upon to refer to the case of the Kunanga land purchase. In the course of debate lastweek Mr. Hindjiaksh said that, a Wellington resident named "Richaed Kixo" had bought some poor pumice land in the Eunanga district and had afterwards got rid of it by selling it to the Government through a member of Parliament. On Saturday last we printed a letter from Mr. Richard Keene stating some facts in connection with the purchase which require investigation. Mr. Keene explains that he and a Mr. Reid sold a block of land at Runanga to a Mr. Ballan, taking a mortgage as part payment. In June last Mr. G. W. Russej.l, M.P., approached Mn. Keene and informed him that he (Mil. Kusseli,) had purchased the Runanga land from Mr. Ballan and was negotiating with the Government for a sale of part of the land to the Crown. A purchase by the Crown was made. Mn. H. M. Cauphell, M.P., has a motion on the Order Paper asking for particulars of this very unusual transaction. The Government has shown no disposition to let daylight into the matter, and Mn. lU;ssei.l has said nothing. Yet it is perfectly obvious that full investigation must be made, and full publicity demanded, in order that the public may feel quite sure that its interests have been safeguarded.' When a member of Parliament acquires land in order to sell it at once to the Crown, and when that member is a supporter oE the Government, be and the Government ought to be willing to give details of the whole transaction, and to give them at once. AVe shall say no more just now excepting that the matter is one for a strict inquiry. Mn. Andrew Carnegie, having almost as much time as money on his bands, has been amusing himself by drawing up a list of "the twenty greatest men" who over lived. Most of his heroes arc inun few people ever heard of—chiefly inventors, and inventors, especially, of steel processes. Mr. Carnegie's list was submitted to one hundred selected names. One of these was Mn. Frederic Harrison, who, after exclaiming at Mr. Carnegie's omission of such small fry as Homer, Aristotle, Charlemagne, and Dante, said a very wise thing: "And if wo once begin to insert the authors of modern mechanical inventions, where shall wo stop? and where do automobiles come in, or Marconigrams and kinenintographs, nay, even fountain pens, grnmajihones, untipon and pink pills—and all the damnable dodges invented to malcc us all go faster, work harder, and worry each other worse than man was ever worried before?" The composite list finally produced was a good one enough. Shakespeare headed it, and Luther, Charlemagne, and Confucius scraped in at the bottom. It was as follows:—Shakespeare, Columbus, Caesar, Gutenberg, Newton, Dante, Daravin, Stephenson, Homer, Buddha, Aristotle, Michael Angelo, Franklin, Lincoln, Moses, Socrates, St. Paul, Watt, Confucius, Charlemagne, and Luther. It is a lesson in the inability of mankind to realise who are "the movers and shapers of the world." The late Hon. "Henry Scotland, in his last speech in the Legislative Council, quoted from Montesquieu, and, suddenly remembering where he was, observed that he was foolish to quote that great philosopher, since most people would think all his works inferior to a single speech by the late Mr. Seddon. We should not like to dogmatise: perhaps Mr. Scotland was wrong in preferring Montesquieu. Perhaps those "Liberals" are right who have been saying that when the history of the world comes to be written Sin Joseph Ward's name, like Abou Ben I Adhem's, will "lead all the rest." AVe wonder. But the dust gathers quickly on the politicians of this world. Perhaps, though, twenty centuries hence Early in the New Year the London Daily Xcws gave a good deal of space to expounding a scheme for solving the problem of Consols by making the stock redeemable at par in sixty-two years. AVe need not give particulars of the yews's or trouble about its arguments; our only purpose in mentioning the matter hero is to notice a comment by the London Xalinii (the Radical weekly) that is worth some consideration in this country in connection with our own public debt. The Xdllon described the plan as "an absolutely ironclad patent' , and asked this question : "Will the Daily Xrirs guarantee us against war for sixty-two years!" Now, the Prime Minister of this country Jias persistently endeavoured, with obviously lessening effect each time, to stii , up enthusiasm for his wonderful plan of wiping out the public debt in 75 years by putting away eighteen pence in the left-hand_ drawer instead of seventeenpence. in the right-hand drawer, and simultaneously borrowing a pound and taking the eiqhteennence out again to spend. Of course from most points of view it is a laughable scheme, a bogus scheme. But when considered with the Xαiiuii'x question in mind, it becomes isomdhiiiß wovsp—it bocomes simply ,'i cover for a reckless and anti-na-tional financial policy. What provision has "Liberalism" after its twenty-year-long possession of power made"foi , tin , financing of the country in limes of real trouble, such ;;s a big war] It hi:* niadc none. It lias merely plunged on living in lodnv and leaving the morrow to lake care of itself.

Oμ; is nol. iircustunintl to coii";rnliiliitr niii-'s nrißliliiiui , evi'rv nuinihii; on liis yirtui , in not. liavinj; cdimniitcd perjury the night before. And su

I there, ought to be no reason why Mil. Vkitcii should be congratulated for having done so natural a thing as to vole in the direction in which lie pledged himself to vote. There mil/11l to lie no reason: but there really does seem to be a reason. For the normal thing amongst new Lahour M.P.'s appears to be a keenness to break their pledges. Jin. ViiiTCii is therefore fo.be congratulated on having failed to subscribe lo the new Labour doctrine that bilking is the game to play. He will doubtless lie often in opposition to the Deform party, but lie will always command their respect if he goes on as he began—namely, along the straight road. But Jl 11. Veitch'h behaviour will only emphasise the fact that two other Labour members broke their pledges. The result will be that the public will henceforth view with suspicion the promises of pledges of every Labour candidate. Two out of three of the little Labour party who had given pledges coolly repudiated them. How will anybody feel sure that any Labour candidate in future is a Veitch ? Will not most people fear he will turn out a Payne or a Rohehtson 1 It is quite obvious that Messrs. Payne and Uobehtsox have dealt a heavy blow at the Labour cause by quccriiiß the pitch of all future Labour candidates. There is room for a Labour party in Parliament, but what sort of recommendation to popular support is the fact that in its cradle a section of the Parliamentary Labour party has shown this disregard for the pledged word ?