NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1815, 30 July 1913, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

Our friends of the United Labour party plainly are much concerned ns to their position in relation to the general body of organised labour. Mr. M. J. ]{kaiido>c, who writes this morning so slightingly of his old fricncl and ally, Mb. Tjiegeak, is, wo imagine, doing injustice to that gentleman in an endeavour to weaken his influence in Labour circles, and so discount his criticism of the misnamed section of trades unionism which clings to a name it is not entitled to. There are not many political questions probably on which we should be found in agreement with Mr. Treciear, and wo arc utterly opposed to his Socialistic teachings, but we had given him credit for sincerity, and also for a somewhat reckless disregard for his own interests. Indeed, when in charge of the Labour Department as Under-Secretary for Labour, his indiscretions in giving voice to his personal opinions brought him under censure on 'more than one occasion, and he certainly then appeared to bo more concerned to openly state his views than to consider the possible consequences to himself. Now Mr. Reardon, being like other leaders of the so-called United Labour party, very much alarmed at Mr. Tregear's exnosure of their make-believe of unity and strength, asserts that that gentleman is not the disinterested advocate of Labour that he would have people believe. Mr. Tregear has shown that ho is ciuite capable of dealing with Mr. Reardon and his friends of the United Labour party. It says something for Mr. Reardon's courage that he should venture to break a lance with Mr. Tregear, after witnessing the trouncing that gentleman so recently administered to his colleague, Mu. D. M'Laren.

A lengthy discussion took place in the House of Representatives yesterday regarding the provision of the Magistrate's Court Amendment Bill that no person shall in future be appointed a magistrate who is ■not a- barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court. Mb. G. W. Russell moved that the provision be struck out, and was supported by several members of ,thc Opposition on the ground that it would make the magistracy a close corporation for lawyers, whereas laymen of sound common-sense often made excellent magistrates. It was also contended that "the people's judge" should be selected on other grounds than his legal qualification. Mr. Herdsian, however, rightly contended that the provision was a vital element of tho Bill. In this he was ably supported by Mb. Hanan, who effectively disposed of the arguments of those members who urged that the clause was an undemocratic one. "What is the view of Labour?" he was asked by an intcrjccter. He promptly replied that Labour wanted the best men obtainable for the position of magistrate—trained and skilled men who knew their-business. No adequate reply was mado to Mb. Hanax's argument. Surely it is just as necessary to have men who have made a special study of law to preside over our Law Courts as it is to have thoroughly qualified doctors to take charge of our hospitals ? They should also, of course, bo men of common-sense, but ' common-sense alone is not sufficient. It is in the best interests of the democracy that "the people's judges" should be men of standing in the logal profession, for it would tend to reduce the number of appeals, and thus lessen the time and money spent- in litigation. In view of die fact that the Bill also proposes to extend the powers of tho. Magistrate's Court, it becomes all the more necessary that men of legal training and experience in law should be appointed to the Bench. Several members spoke of tho legal profession as a close corporation; but, 'of course, that is quite a mistake. It is open to all, rich or poor, who have the ability to qualify themselves, and it is essential that the community should have some guarantee that those who practise tho law arc qualified lo do so. The House rejected Jin. Russell's amendment.

his place during tlw past week and declared his opinion in unmistakable terms that the people arc not to be trusted; at least, so far as the election of their particular Chamber is concerned. The reasons given are many and varied, but they all go in the one direction, that is, that the Bill introduced to reform the Cimnc.il and make it elective should not be allowed to pass. The honourable gentlemen who have with such unanimity opposed the Bill arc by no means so unanimous in the alternatives they would suggest. The Ho;;. Mr. Sinclair, in his very able speech, suggested a Chamber partly elective and partly filled by nomination. The Hon. Mr. Anktey, who also opposed tho Bill, declined to have any of your "hybrid" 'Houses, such as suggested by Mr. Sinclair; ■but he had some idea of his own for improving the Chamber. Tho Hon. G. Jones, who apparently is in a state of happy content with existing things, opposed the Bill, presumably because he believes that the rest of the country is as well pleased to leave things alone as he would be himself. The Hon. Seymour George. another opponent of the Bill, urged that if the elective principle were to be applied, the franchise should rest on a property qualification, a suggestion which met with a hostile reception from all quarters of the House. So the opponents of the Bill disagree amongst themselves as to the remedy required. In the meantime the debate is making very: slow progress. The Council is sitting on an average a little over two hours a day, which means tliat there are two speeches a day On the Bill. Unless the Council bestirs itself it will probably find its easy-going methods quoted as another argument in favour of the chango proposed in the Bill.