NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1563, 5 October 1912, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

_$ . An amusing bit of American political parade which has been much commented upon in America and Britain is worth preservation as a parable. The Governor of Oregon, a great poseur, had to attend a meeting of State Governors the other day. The meeting-place was 500 miles away, and no rode on horseback all the way because, as he publicly explained, he could not afford the railway fare. The New York Pod showed that the vide must have cost the Governor £27 at a very moderate estimate, and that the railway fare was only £>'■ When the Pod's article reached* England the Westminster (Idzc.tte made the obvious comment that "the real explanation of _ this eccentricity is that it was a bit of playiDg to the gallery." "In the Far West," it added, "a man who rides on horseback when he might*.

have gone by rail Ims a good chance of being thought 'democratic' and 1 'one of the people'." _ But the Gov- J ernor'a actual feat might have been ; invented as a parable of Radical ] politics. What is Radicalism, in < Britain or in New Zealand, but a ( pretence that by doing something ' through the State it can be done better than if it is clone in some other way. The State "nationalises" some ] industry with a flourish of trumpets i about "the nation as a whole" and • "tho interests of all"; the Governor > mounts his slow and expensive horse ■ with a pompous profession that he : is "one of tho people." And tho work tho State does is done worse and more expensively than if private persons had done it; just as the Governor's "democratic" ride cost far more than an "undemocratic" trip in a Pullman car.. The parable holds at nearly every point. The speeches on the resolutions brought forward by the Government recommending the substitution of the elective for the nominative system in the constitution of the Legislative Council cannot be said to have thrown any new light on the ques-' tion. The Government has certainly made its position in the matter very clear. It is determined that the Upper House shall be elective; that the electorates shall be few and large to permit of tho introduction of the system of proportional representation; and that tho franchise shall be the same as in elections for the House of Representatives. These are the things it is not prepared to give way upon, and no doubt it will be supported by a substantial majority of the House when tho measure embodying the Government's proposals comes up for consideration. That, however, will not be during the present session. Meantime the Opposition are making play with the sug- . gestion that before providing for an elective Upper House the Government should alter the system of election for the Lower Chamber. They argue that if proportional representation is a sound and wise method of electing the Legislative Council it should bo equally good for the House of Representatives. Possibly this latter contention may be correct, though it docs not necessarily follow that it should be. But surely it is rather absurd to contend that reform of the Upper House should be delayed until the system of electing the House of Representatives is changed. The two things are entirely distinct. Apparently the House realised this, for Mr. Russell's amendment on the subject was not pressed to a division and the resolutions were carried in a manner calculated to occasion serious anxiety to those who are attempting i» stave off this particular reform. It is somewhat significant that the Labour party now openly repudiates any association with the remnants of the self-styled Liberals in the House. Me. Robertson made this very clear during the debate on the Bill dealing with the increase in the Graduated' Land Tax. Referring to a statement by Mr. G. W. Russell he said "the Labour party maintained an absolute independence in the country and in the House." This independence may not always be visiblo to the naked eye in the case of some members of the Labour party, but we suspect that the representatives of Labour are becoming disillusioned as to the statesmanlike qualities of the men who lead the "Liberal" section of the House. j • The proposal that sympathisers with 7 'the Waihi strikers should lose a day's work in order to show their admiration for men who are attempting to intimidate a weaker rival union of fellow-workers is on a par with the rest of the tactics of the Labour Federation. It is just the sort of thing ono would expect from the leaders of that organisation. In the first place it displays an utter absence bi any regard for the public interest or the public conscience. It does not matter to these people how much they may interfere with the course of business so long as they can make their little demonstrations. But the utfcor folly of the thing may perhaps be brought home iio them , when they realise that what they are asking is that everyone who sympathises with their intolerance and tyranny shall make the financial sacrifice of losing a day's or half a day's pay—for what? Presumably in order that they may be less able to • assist the strikers with financial cdn- ; tributions. Some day, perhaps, the men who are so badly advised by the leaders of the "red flag" movement will wake up to the fact that the blind way , in which they do as they are ' told is not merely a reflection on . their intelligence, but seriously pre- [ judicial to their interests. At pre- ' sent, however, they appear to do as ' they_ are told and suffer the incon- [ venience and loss with a docility and : meekness that are quite amazing to ' the looker-on.