NOTES OF THE DAY

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 159, 31 March 1919, Page 6

NOTES OF THE DAY

Both the Acting-Leader of the old Liberal Party, Ml!. W. D. S. MacDonald, and his colleague the Hon. G. W. .Russell have'been able to advance some good reasons for the failure of the National Government to give that prominence to legislation and developmental work customary jin peace times. The Government was formed, as stated by the Ministers mentioned,_ in order to permit of the full energies of the Ministry being devoted to war measures, and the record of the Dominion in this respect affords convincing proof that the coalition decided on was a wise step, and one in the interests of the people of New Zealand and of the Empire. It is on the whole a splendid record, and one in which the Government and the people of the Dominion can justly take pride. But the success which has attended the Government's war measures has come to be taken for granted, while its failure to satisfactorily cope with domestic problems such as the cost of living is permitted to overshadow everything else. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the Govern,ment is now largely engaged in marking time until the ■ return of the two party leaders. _ _ The real evil of the existing position is that there is nothing in the way of a policy regarding the future which the Government can put before the people. It is made clearer practically every time a Minister speaks that the immediate political future is shrouded in doubt, even on_such matters as affect the relationship of existing parties and the creation of new ones. One thing is" very obvious', and that, that the National Government under existing conditions has nothing to offer. Ancl jbhe reason Js to be_ found, in the fact that those forming the Government expect very soon to be divided into separate camps. '

A question which a good many people are askiwr is whether the Government would have drifted into: the unhappy position in which it finds itself to-day if it had agreed to abandon tho old party divisions permanently instead of only temporarily. While it would be unsafe ta offer a confident opinion on this question, there can be little doubt that Ministers would have been bet-' (er placed to work unitedly for a common end had they not had hanging over them all the time the knowledge that at no distant date they would be arrayed in opposite political camps. This, of course, would apply with greater force to matters of domestic policy than to war measures.

One remark made by the ActingLeader of the Liberal Party in his Christchurch interview of Saturday last is illuminating, as indicating tho strange difficulty which' some of our public men experience in adjusting themselves to the changed conditions brought about by the war. Mr, Mac Donald was discussing the new Progressive Party which has lately sprung into existence in Parliament. Presumably with the idea of discrediting in advance the activities of this party, he remarked that "the names of many of the members of the new Progressive Party have been mentioned to,me, and some of these gentlemen will have to turn double somersaults to convince the people of the country that the views they are expounding to-day coincide with their political opinions of a few years ago." Apparently Ma. Mac Donald regards it as being to the discredit of these gentlemen, whoever they may he, that they should ever change their opinions If Mr. Mao Donald has not changed any of his opinions a.s the results of the war and conditions arising out of the war then he must a very much duller man than he is credited with being. The one thing to-day that this country will not tolerate is a political party that is too wooden or too deeply buried in its- own self-complaocncy to have profited by the lessons of the Great War. We do not, of course, refer to the military lessons, but to tho social and economic lessons of the war. If the new Progressive Party can show that its members are not hidebound followers of old party political ideas as known_ to us m New Zealand, and that it is' not only progressive but sane and rea-sonable,,then--instead of incurring odium, as is suggested by Mr. MacDonald's remarks, it has an excellent chance of winning approval and gathering a very wide measure of support.

e*, * * The raiding of Chinese pak-avpoo houses by the polico has brought us the usual budget of letters, in which notes of interrogation figure as the outstanding feature. _ "Why is this activity directed against the Chinese? Why are not worse offenders dragged bofore the Court and fined?? -Why are bookmakers allowed to practise their calling with impunity, and prey on "the public ?rf ? Here is an extract from one of the letters in question, and it makes some points which cannot be lightly brushed aside:

It is jiot very many months ago since quite a number of Wellington, Christchurch, and Auckland bookmakers went into the witness-box in tho Supremo Court in Wellington, and disclosed their illegal business on oath in the conspiracy betting case. Of course it was well known at the time they were indemnified by tho Police Department. It was generally expected that after the cxposuro in that particular caso there would bo a big cleaning up uf bookmakers; but it is well known quite the reverse is the case. I will now conclude by asking those in authority why are bookmakers permitted to defy tho law and police oiuf transact their illegal business with impunity? They have the use of the Government telephones, Post and Telegraph Departments to oxccss, arid no exception is taken to it. Surely if it is a crime for the Chinese to gamble _ between themselves it is a thousands times worse for bookmakers who are supposed to be defunct and wiped out by Act of Parliament to carry on their illegal calling. If the. bookmakers lire privileged to break tho law why punish tho Chinamen? Why, indeed!