The Manawatu Herald. Thursday, November 17, 1910. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 919, 17 November 1910, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. Thursday, November 17, 1910. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

The Rev. Mr Woodward, vicar of All Saints’, believes in progress both spiritual and municipal. When introducing Mr Newman M.P., at the opening ceremony at yesterday’s bazaar, he took occasion to remark that what was wanted in church as well as civic life was “progress.” He warned church people not to be like the citizen, who, when asked whether he intended to vote for the water and drainage loan proposals—recently submitted to the ratepayers and rejected—said : “No, I’m not going to support the loan. What do I want water and drainage for ? The tanks, etc., have been good enough for me for the past 30 years and the present system should be good enough for everyone else.” The rev. gentleman condemned stagnation. We quite agree with him and although we do not approve of ministers of the gospel ruling in our municipal councils, yet we would willingly strain a point to support Mr Woodward if be were previleged offer himself for civic honours. We want enthusiasm in our public men. If Foxton is to become modernised we shall have to wait until those who are standing in the way of progress have passed away or else return men of enthusiasm to govern the destinies of the borough. Water and drainage is an essential to good health, and it is nothing but sheer ignorance and criminal indifference on the part of ratepayers that is perpetuating the present primitive and inadequate water supply and disgusting sanitary conditions. Mr Newman, in his remarks, also touched on the same subject and urged those present to adopt a water and drainage scheme. We don’t like to harp on the same string too often, but we must repeat that the failure of the ratepayers to sanction the loan proposals mentioned will be a standing reproach until they redeem their past action. Those Councillors who pledged themselves to carry a water and drainage scheme for the borough should redeem the pledges given to the ratepayers prior to the election. Their term of office expires next April.

IT would appear that neither the “Trade” nor “ Reform ’’ parties are altogether satisfied with the recent Licensing Amendment Bill. The Reform party’s objective was to carry local option and national prohibition on the democratic principle of the bare majority, or at least the 55-45 majority. This concession was not granted on the plea that the majority of members were pledged to the three-fifths. While we agree with the democratic principle of the bare majority we must not shut our eyes to the fact that this great reform can only be attained by a spirit of compromise. The objective ot the No-License party is the settlement of this question by the bare majority and candidates at the next election will be carefully examined on this point before they will receive the party vote. When the question again comes before the House there will be no loophole. The conciliatory spirit evinced by the No-license party on this point will, in the long run, be to their advantage. The separation of the local and national issues is a great advance. We shall now be able to fairly accurately guage the strength of the so-called “moderate” party, and electors will not be asked to vote for something they do not want in order to obtain something they do want. Other provisions in the Bill do away with evils and abuses now existing, such as the locker system, the bottle license, beer depot, and the barmaid. It also prohibits the sale of intoxicating liquor to any person under 21 years of age. The monopolycreating reduction issue is gone and the closing hour is fixed by statute at 10 p.m. The measure is viewed by the Trade as reasonably equitable. If National prohibition is carried a period of four years is to elapse before it comes into operation and the time for the coming into operation of local No-License, if carried,isextended from six months to 19 months. These extensions are equivalent to considerable compensation. The Bill with several minor amendments passed the Legislative Council last night and will now become law.

The appalling increase of deaths under anaesthetics in England has led a medical correspondent of the Daily Mail to deal with the matter. It seems that in 1886 five such deaths were recorded ; in 1900 there were 116 ; in 1905 155, and in 1909 235. The writer goes on to urge that the use of anaesthetics should be controlled by legislation. At present they may be administered by anybody, Chloroform alone was responsible last year in England for 70 deaths. “ No operation/’ says the writer, “ not a dental operation,

uudcr anaesthetics should be conducted by an operator unaided by an anaesthetist.”