NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1490, 12 July 1912, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

n The recent lamentable death of Wilbur Wright led to the publication of some interesting articles on the present and future ot flying. Had Wright lived, and lived long enough, it is suggested, man might have conquered tho air by returning to the old idea that to fly you" must copy the bird. The earlier experimenters took it for granted that, a flying machine should imitate the bird's anatomical structure, and even so late as 1897 a machine built for the French Government "reproduced the structure of a bird with almost servile imitation." It was the Wrights who worked out the principles of the non-avian school. The monoplane, less stable than the birplane, came with the improvement of engines, and flying became possiblo through speed.. Latterly, aviators have begun to study how to dispense with, speed, and the New York Post suggests that "it may yet bo tho historical .function of the perfected engine that it enabled men ,to fly long enough to master the secret of flight, 6r at least of perfect equilibrium, • without a motor." ■ ■> It is significant, that in their latest experiments the Wrights were aiming at solving the problem of automatic equilibrium, and apparently aiming also >at flight without mechanical power. This was plainly a return to the original idea that man might use the air currents as the birds use them, requiring only a tiny amount of power, as a bird does. As the melancholy endless tale of deaths keeps the world painfully aware, no aeroplane can rise without having the odds in favour of its destruction. In some ' future age perhaps, they will look back in amazement at our present aeroplane achievements as we look Back to-day from a steamer's deck at the triremes of ancient Home." Aviation, however, was lucky in having Wilbur Wright,_ and most unfortunate in losing him now.

The Opposition is. surprising no,bbdy in the difficulty it is experiencing in choosing a leader. Perhaps it is a little shy of performing this ordinary and necessary duty, remembering the calamitous result of the last leaderelection caucus. But most people who had examined the character of the Ward party expected that as soon as the tido of circumstance dissolved out the cement of ascendancy, that party would be plainly visible as a heterogenous mass of disunited factions. " Nobody has discovered any common principle for which the gentlemen on the Speaker's left can hght. Chagrin is not a_ binding force, nor is unanimity in wishing to recover the Treasury benches. If the 31 members who make up "the Opposition caucus' selected a leader, what would he be leading 1 _ Keally, he would be leading nothing; his leadership wo'iid really be an imaginary mastership of a non-existent party. What common flag can cover, say, Mr. Myers and Mr. Isitt, or Mr. Russell the large landowner, and Mr. Ell 1 Perhaps we shall see the Opposition split into groups, each of which may have its own leader, and: each of which will drift'further and further apart from- the others. We can hardly believe that such an Opposition could long endure the slow torture .of being merely critical and factiously obstructive. If the Inform Government, when in Oppo3 ; .' tion, had ever become that sort of Opposition, it would haVfc dissolved long ago. But it was united by one clear purpose, namely, the establishment of certain clearly defined and much-needed reforms. Today the post of Leader of the Opposition is not one that will appear attractive to anyone but a practical joker. It will bo a great nuisance if later on the Prime Minister, on making a speech, has to be followed by six leaders of the Opposition. Mr. Massey ought to insist that the different leaders should draw lots.

Some notice is due to' the extraordinary incident that closed Wednesday's sitting of tho House. The member for Awarua wished to aaic Mr. Myers, without notice, a question relating to the public accounts. It is to bo regretted that the Pkime Minister, out of courtesy, permitted the question to be asked. As a result Mr. Myers actually produced, as a member of the Opposition, a document belonging to the Government. How did Mr.. Myers come to retain possession of this document'! It is not merely a question of impertinence that the incident raises; we think most- people will hold that the member for Awarua and tho member for Auckland East mid t<ba tnernhor for Avon, who aim contrived to got himself into the

proprietorship of a public document did a quite improper thing. Had the effrontery or the proceeding not staggered the Ministerialist bench-.--, no doubt somebody would have informed, the Oppositionists concerned, in a few plain words, of the nature of their behaviour. Why, we are quite ready now to believe that when the House meets on July 31 those members of the Opposition who were in the late Ministry will calmly produce all sorts of other State documents. Do these gentlemen not know that when they left office they ceased to exercise responsibility of any kind ? The next thing we shall be hearing is that the member for Awarua still calls on the various Departments to carry out his wishes. It is even possible that ex-Ministers may consult the authorities in London regarding the raising of a loan or two on behalf of the country! The lifctlo incident under notice really fulfils, in the spirit at anyrato, the old prediction that when they were beaten the '.'Liberal" bosses would not let go their desks until the Sergeant-at-Arms was called in to drag them out.