NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1878, 11 October 1913, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

The main purpose of the Nativo Land Amendment Bill, introduced in the House of Bepresentatives yesterday by the Minister of Nativo Affairs, is the speedy settlement of tho idle Native lands of the country. Tho two outstanding features aro the proposed alteration of tho Maori Land Boards by 'tho substitution of Native Land Court Judges and Registrars for tho present members j and the giving of power to the Crown to purchase from the Native owners individually instead of having to assemble the owners interested in a block, and purchase from thom as a body. One of the chief ends aimed at is the rapid ascertainment of titles, tho chief hindrance to the settlement of Nativo lands being the difficulty of ascertaining who exactly aro the owners. The safeguards to prevent Natives being rendered landless through selling their land are continued, and provision is mado also to ensure that land acquired from tho Nativo owners shall bo disposed of only in limited areas. The policy of tho Government of settlement by means of small freehold will be followed in connection with the ealo of Native lands, as it is in the ease of Grown lands, tit is unfortunate that on a question of such great importance to the country as the Native land question, some members of the Opposition should have felt it necessary .to indulge in such wild and reckless party harangues as were witnessed yesterday when the Bill was introduced. The tremendous lot of table thumping and heroic professions of mighty intentions to protect the interests of the Natives as Messes. Isitt and Laurenson and others apparently felt the occasion called for was quite out of place, and in the circumstances not a little ridiculous It is, of course, very true that Natives have been at times tricked and robbed by land grabbers, but the gentlemen mentioned above should not forget that their own party has been in office for over 20 years, and much trickery and robbery has gone on during that period. It is a little early yet to begin to assail tho present Government on this point, and they would be well advised to follow the example of the Whip of their party and Native member of the Ward Ministry, Me. Ngata. The contrast between that gentleman's calm and reasoned references to Native policy, and the shallow platitudes and noisy soolding of his European confreres was very noticeablo. The Bill covers a wide range of ground, ai)d before it receives the consideration of the House it will go before the Nativo Affairs Committee, where its various provisions are certain to be closely analysed. Judging from its reception by members who_ are regarded as qualified to apeak with authority on Native matters, even the opponents of the Government find mucn in it which meets with their approval. Tho Minister of Native Affairs, the Hon. W. H. Herries, probably commands more confidence in the House on Nativo matters than any other member, of either party.

Me. Ohukohill's epecoh _ ot Dundee on the Homo Rule question oponß in a very provocative manner, but concludes with a conciliatory note. Tho opithetical invective with which ho describes the "polecats of politics" is certainly not edifying, nor does it help to pave the way to a satisfactory solution of a difficult and dangerous problem. Howover. after having a wild fling at his opponents, ho admitted that Ulstermen are in earnest, and that the claim of North East Ulster for special consideration cannot bo brushed aside without tho Government's full consideration. This is an important admission to bo mado by a Cabinot Minister, in what is regarded as an official statement of tho Government's attitude, and Mr. Churchill's declaration that the Liberal party would meet any advances from the other side more than half-way is a clear indication that the Government fully realises tho extreme gravity of the position. Though tho speech as a whole is much more conciliatory than Mr. Redmond's reoent utte'ranoe, no hope is held out of an appeal to the peoplo before the Home Rule Bill is finally passed. The press opinions on Mr. Churchill's speech are very conflicting. Somo papers consider that it is conciliatory, and others th<it it is provocativo, As a matter of fact it is both; but it oertainly leaves a distinct impression that the Government is really anxious to find a way out of a most unpleasant situation. Mr. Churchill expresses his strong belief that a settlement will bo arrived at, but he omits to state the grounds on which this opinion is based. As far as present information goes, Mr. Abquith seems to bo faced by a hopeless dilemma. If he satisfies Ulster he must alienate tho Nationalists; and if he adheres to Mr. Redmond he must bo ready for civil war in Ireland. It is even doubtful whether tho sacrifioo of Ireland's national integrity by cutting off tho north-eastern oountics would satisfy the opponents of Homo Rule, for the Belfast papers ridioule this suggestion as a solution of tho difficulty, and tho Nationalist press declares that Buch a stop would bo preposterous. As long as Sir Edward Carson and Mk. Redmond decline to make a movo in the direction of compromise, and while Mr. Abquith refuses to entertain tho idea'of an appeal to tho people, no path to a peaceful settlement is visible.

A debate which took plaoe In Melbourne recently on the question of "Authority or Anarchy 1 • gavo an interesting insight into some of the strange phases of modern political thougnt. The champion of anarchy spoke of property as an accursed thing. Without property, ho aaid, all men would be equal. Without law there oould be no property, and if one did away with property, one would do away with law, which was only legalised robbery and slavery. Marriage waa an absurd habit, which should bo abolished in favour of free union and free separation. Tho Socialist advocate contended that some kind of authority was necessary, and that the trouble was not caused by law, but by tho fact that kings and chiefs were at tho head of affairs. His opponent, however, persisted that if human beings wore only reasonablo there would bo no need of government. Anarchy stood for reason, and reason led to anarchy. Democracy was a bludgeoning of tho people, for the people, by the people. The Socialist debater on the other hand saw no difficulty in producing a world in which ovcryono would be happy. All that was required was to "force Parliament to always go tho right way." Ho admitted that it would take a thousand years to briug this about, which is not very consoling to tho present generation. It is a fashionable bolief at the presaat time that majorities must) rule,

but tbe Anarchist scouted the idea. He Baid majority rulo was tyranny, and his remedy is to have no rule at all. A young man who had been listening to the debate was not at all impressed by this argument, and made the pertinent remark that at that very meeting the chairman waa vested with a certain amount of authority, and asked whether authority waa not needed in the freest of societies. Tho whole discussion, with all Its strdnge arguments, rovealcd_ a striking contrast. The Socialist thinks that the best way to make men happy is to regulate tlicir lives from the cradle to tho grave by an infinite extension of the sphere of law _ and authority, while the Anarchist holds that if life is ever to bo worth living, law and authority in every shape or form must be abolished. Level-headed men and womon have, however, come to the conclusion that there is a more excellent way, and that while there can be no liberty in tho true sense without law, too much law makes real freedom impossible. Tho ideal to bo aimed at is the rigEt balance between tho two—"the perfect law of liberty."

_ Thh unhappy position of the Opposition Party is well illustrated by the latest split in its ranks, due to its leader throwing in his lot with the Government on the Land Bill now under discussion in the House of Representatives. Srn Joseph Ward and about half of his following voted for tho second reading of the Bill, while the remainder hurled denunciations at it, and voted to destroy it. One of tho party organs alarmed no doubt at this further evidence of the lack of harmony in the opinions of members of tho party sought to explain tho position away in this iashion:

No doubt It will be urged that this oiroumstanco [of Opposition members supporting tho Bill! ia a striking testimony to the merits of the measure. It will be said that notwithstanding tho criticism to which it has been subjected, the Bill is ono of Buch outstanding worth that even Oppoßtiionists could do nothing but give it .their support when tho division ball rang. That line of. comment lioirevor—which we fully anticipated—is of a very negative value. The responsibility of the measure rests with tho Government, and those members of the Opposition who voted for its second reading did 60 for tho reason that nothing better was on offer, and that there may be opportunities for introducing improvements and removing objections during the passage of tho Bill through Committee.

This is very delightful. But if one half of the party voted for the Bill because it was the best Bill on offer, why did tho other half break away from its leader, and vote against him, aa well as voting against the Bill I Our Opposition friends are unfortunate in their endeavours to explain away these unpleasant little happenings. In time they may learn the virtues of discreet silence.

With an ungraciousness quito in keeping with the general tone of its comments on political questions tho local journal of the Opposition marred,an otherwise complimentary referenoa to tho appointment of Sin William HALL-JoNEsto tho Legislative Council by a remark to tho effect that Sir William had "rooontly found reason" to modify his political opinions, and that he now inclined strongly towards Toryism. An assertion of this nature ooming from such a source and, directed against one who had rendered such service to tho "Liberal" cause would naturally lead the public to suppose that the journal publishing it lad some definite knowledgo which warranted its action. Subsequent developments, however, go to show that there was not the slightest foundation for the statement, which was nothing more than, a reckless and malicious invention, designed apparently to embarrass the gentleman referred to. Sir William HallJones, as soon as tho article containing tho_ statement was brought under his notioe, wrote to the Anti-Reform journal as follows:— ■

In your sub-leader to-day referring to myself jou say"lt certainly is the fact that Sir William has reoently found reason to modify his political opinion, and now inclines strongly towards Toryism; but why should wo complain, eto., etc. Left at this, it is Innuendo of the grossest type. Now, I challenge you to say upon what grounds- you Dase this statement. You. may • call to your aid any, or all, of the luminaries who frequently adorn your paper, but I ask you to adopt the manly courso, and My straight out the grounds for what you have said.

To this direct challenge the paper made answer in characteristic fashion. ( It had not, it Baid, used any innuendo; it had expressed its convictions. And the proof! Of oourse, it had no proof. It had not even the decency to admit its fault and acknowledge its inability to substantiate its allegation. Instead it aggravated its offence by stating that it "believed it had ample reason" for the view it had expressed, and that timo would prove whether or not it. was right. Sib .William Hall-Jones, who has been absent from the Dominion for some years, should profit by the lesson he has been afforded of the depths to which tho press of his old party has sunk in its endeavour to misrepresent and vilify those with whom it is in disagreement. lie may derive some consolation, however, from the fact that the methods of those journals have been sufficiently exposed to render their criticisms innocuous, save amongst those who delight to think evil of their fellows, and who are baso enough to find gratification in the slandering of men with whom they aro in disagrement. Needless to say, there aro many who oppose the present Government politically who are quite as disgusted with tho dishonest tactics of these organs of the Opposition as are the friends of tho Ministry.