NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1542, 11 September 1912, Page 6

NOTES OF THE DAY.

A correspondent, signing himself "T.H.," whoso letter appears in ancolumn, is perhaps right in advising that detailed discussion of . Professor Schae'fer's British Assc ' ciation address should be postponed until the full text is before us; but the criticism; of Sir E. Hay Lankester and Dri A. R.. Wallace (published in our cable messages yesterday) clearly indicates that Professor Schaefeu has simply restated in an able and striking way, the mechani- ; cal theory of life with which the works of Huxley and Haeckel have made the world familiar. We stated on Saturday that tho views of tho President of the British Association as regards the origin of life were not new, and this is amply borne out by Dr. Wallace and Sir Bay Lankester with the full text of the address before them. Whilo far from agreeing with the adverse criticism of Bergson's philosophy contained in the quotations given by "T.H." from Dr.. M'Douqall and Mr. Bertrand Russell, we would like to make it quite clear that we doihot by any means regardi Bergson as an infallible authority. The fascination of his style, the originality/of his ideas; and the fact that he shows a way of escape from the depression engendered by the purely mechaniview of life, succeeded for a time in keeping in the background the weak points of his philosophy. However, the critics are now Dusy, and in. due time we will be able to arrive at a truer estimate of his place in the world of thought; but no unbiased and competent critic will deny that Bergson nas a message well worth delivering and that he has made valuable contributions to the best thought of the day. Mr. Bertrand RussELL_(as quoted by "T.H.") gives a very inadequate and unsympathetic outline of Bergson's philosophy, especially as regards his references to intellect and intuition. Mr. Wildon Carr, in his little book on The Philosophy of Change, of which Bergson himself read the proofs, puts the matter in'a very different light. He writes: "Deeper than any intellectual bond which binds a conscious creature to the reality in which it lives and which it may come to know, there is a vital bond. Our knowledge rests on an intuition which is not, at least I which is never _ purely, intellectual. This intuition is of the very essence of life, and the intellect is formed from it by life, or is ono of tho forms that life has given to it in order to direct the activity and serve the purpose of the living beings that are endowed with it. .... To understand knowledge we must first grasp the meaning of life." How can the intellect, it has been urged, embrace life of which it is only an emanation or aspect. Life is something more and greater than intellect. As regards the ■ quotation from Dr. M'Dougall it is onty fair to state that it only deals with one aspect of Bergson's teaching. Broadly , speaking, Dr. M'Dougall would probably be more in agreement ■ with Bergson than with Professor ! Schaefer. Reviewing his book on Body and Mind, tho Spectator points '■ out 'that Dr. M'Dougall believes in a substantial personal immortality, and "while agreeing with M. Bergson in his view of the continuity of life, he goes much further than the French thinker in harmonising with ' it the fact of individuality." The Spectator goes on to state that the '■ fact that Bergson should touch this subject "is proof enough that it is in the front rank of current philos- ' ophic importance." In another column we publish some interesting , comments on Professor Schaefer's . address, which appeared in Mon- : day's issue of the Christchurch Press. '■ The member for Timaru was un- i duly sensitive in interpreting the j letter from Mr. W. R, Reynolds, published in our issue of Monday j last, as a reflection on himself as i Chairman of the M to Z Petitions ] Committee of last year. Nothing of ■ the kind was intended. Mr. Reynolds, with other residents at the , Cook Islands, who.have been striv- j ing to secure certain reforms in (he ' administration of the Islands, have I had a very hard struggle against ] heavy odds. They have met with persistent obstruction and heen forced < to submit to irritating delays, and « have been put to considerable r-x- ( iwnsp. Tlwir nrijrinnl demand for n j lull and ocen inquiry with the wit- i

nesses on oath resulted in nothing better-thau the farcical and 'onesided inquiry conducted by the Chief Justice in secret during his brief visit _to the Islands. Last year a petition was presented to Parliament and the M to Z Petitions Committee gave up some time to its consideration, but was unable to conclude its investigations before Parliament adjourned. This Committee, as Mr. Ckaiqie claims for it, does not appear to have shown any prejudice one way or the other, and no ono has accused it of anything of tho kind. In asking for an open inquiry before an unprejudiced tribunal Mi!. Reynolds was merely stating in a general way what he considered ho and those with him were entitled to. They have never yet been afforded the opportunity of an open inquiry with the press present and the witnesses on oath. Yet in view of the facts already brought to light, and the injustice suffered by Dr. Dawson and others, it would seem only a matter of simple justice that such an inquiry should be granted. In bringing up Mb. Reynolds's letter as a matter of privilege, Mb. Craigie no doubt served the purpose he had in view, namely, to make it perfectly clear that his conduct and tho conduct of the M to Z Petitions Committee, so far; as last year's proceedings were concerned, left no room for suspicion of partisanship. It is to be hoped that the discussion in Parliament, brief as it was, will also assist to emphasise the necessity for the full inquiry that is necessary to a complete clearing up of matters in connection with the Cook Islands trouble.

The objections raised to the Public Servico Bill on the second reading debate in the' House of Representatives yesterday were pathetically weak. Sir Joseph Ward and Mr. Wilford and others attempted to make tho most of the old bogies of "club influence" and "autocratic rule," and all the rest of it, but it was a poor effort. Admitting that ,there_ is always the possibility of a certain amount of personal favouritism creeping in under commissioner control, does it not also creep in under Ministerial control? And is not the evil of political favouritism a hundred times worse than any possible form of personal favouritism! For every case in which a commissioner might be found favouring a" public officer on personal grounds, a hundred would be found in which a Minister was influenced to favour an officer on political grounds. This is really too obvious even to need stating. A commissioner may have a score of personal friends who may possibly influence his judgment, but a Government has a following of members who in turn have hundreds of supporters 'looking for favours, and beyond and above ail there is a large section of the public which has come to believe that it is the right and proper thing to expect such favours from Ministers in return for political support. As a matter of, fact there is absolutely no comparison between the'possibilities of favouritism under commissioner as compared with Ministerial control, and thoso who, like Sir Joseph Ward and Mr. Wilford are opposing the Bill on the ground stated, must think the public .very dull indeed not to be ablo to perceive this. The proposed reform, as shown by the report of tho Royal Commission recently presented to Parliament, is badly needed. ■It is endorsed by the members of the Public Service themselves, as disclosed by the deputation which very opportunely waited upon Mr. Herdhan yesterday. The commissioner system has proved a success in Australia and will do so here, provided proper care is taken in the selection of suitable commissioners, which no doubt will be the case. Mr. Herdman, in moving the second reading of tho Bill, explained its main features so clearly and again made out so strong a case in its favour that the anti-Reformers will find it a difficult matter to defend their votes in favour of the perpetuation of the evils of the system which disfigured the rule of the Continuous Ministry.