Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4459, 5 July 1875, Page 4

The bad weather noticed in our last issue still continues, yesterday having been a fearfully wet and stormy day. Thoao who do not desire to be afforded the opportunity to sue the City Council for compensation for a broken leg or some such trifling personal damage, would do well to keep their oyes open, as in addition t» the disreputable state of the streets, huge holes, caused by drains falling in, are not nnfrcqueutly to bo met with. On Saturday a number of men were employed in repairing the drain that crosses Molosworth-street at its junction with Lambton-quay, which, owing to the heavy rain, has caved in. This was not to be wondered at, seeing it was but a few inches beneath the road, over which there is a considerable amount of traffic. A. similar occurrence took place in respect to the drain crossing the road near the railway station, the other day ; and last evening one of the footpaths near St. Paul’s Cathedral was rendered dangerous by n gaping hole. Surely Wellington streets and footpaths are a credit to the City Council, and to the City Council alone does the honor belong, not to its powerless employes, on

whom, according to the tone of some writer or another who combines municipal position with questionable journalistic veracity, should rest the blame.

The public have probably heard enough of late on the subject of corporal punishment as necessary tor maintaining discipline amongst the young. We would, however, claim the patience of those who have become wearied with the discussion, - in order that we may present to some whose ideas on the matter are too testhetic, the following from a "Victorian paper : —“ A case of some importance, as involving the question of the powers of masters to inflict personal chastisement on their apprentices, was heard at the Prahran Police Court. • Mr. W. H. Sturdy, overseer at Sargood, Son, and, Co.’s boot factory, Commercial-road, was summoned by two apprentices at the factory, named Charles Hodgson and Stephen Champion, for unlawful assault, the assault consisting, of a whipping, which had been administered to the lads by the defendant. It appeared that upon occasion the foreman of the factory reported to Mr. Sturdy that Hodgson was neglecting his work, that the defendant then tied him to a post, and as a punishment for the offence took down his trousers and flogged him with a leather strap split into thongs, inflicting half a dozen lashes. Defendant then left the room for a few minutes, arid on returning asked Hodgson how he liked it, adding several other stripes. A similar punishment was inflicted by defendant on Champion for a like neglect of work. Mr. Weller, who appeared for the complainants, urged that the defendant had no authority to inflict corporal punishment on the apprentices ; but it was contended for the defence by Mr. Paussett that the whipping the boys received was well deserved, and no more than a reasonable punishment. There •were over 200 boys in the factory, and if some punishment of the kind were not allowed, it would be quite impossible to keep them under control. He also stated that strict orders were enforced in the factory against the foreman or any other of the employes striking the boys, as was often the case in other establishments, and any case of misconduct by the apprentices had to be' reported to Mr. Sturdy, who • took the responsibility of inflicting a moderate chastisement on the boys. Previous to this rule' a boy had been struck by one of the foremen with a last, and it was contended that the practice of the establishment, while enforcing proper discipline among the apprentices, prevented their being ill-used. By direction of the Bench, the younger complainant, Champion, was taken to the police office, and examined by Sergeant Perkins, who stated that there were only two or three slight marks on his thigh, and ho signs whatever of the skin having been broken. Mr. Templeton said he thought it would be unwise for the Bench to interfere, as when a boy was apprenticed the parent’s responsibility was in a great measure transferred to the master. The master must be allowed a certain amount of liberty to punish his apprentices, so long as the punishment was not unduly severe, and it did not appear to be so in this case. Both summonses..were therefore dismissed, with £1 Is. costs."

As a necessary adjunct of a proper prison and penal system we have never denied the utility of what is called prison labor. But we have frequently asserted that as a matter of public economy for producing purposes of any kind, prison labor is far dearer than that which is free. For this we since have been taken to task by those who have let -an excellent system run away with them until they exaggerate its utility. But we find in a late number of the Melbourne Argus a practical proof of the' truth of our opinions. A short time back the Victorian Government granted free prison labor in the construction of the approaches to a proposed bridge over the Stony Creek, in the line of a road to connect Footsoray and Williamstown. The condition under which the prisoners were granted was, that the local body requiring them should provide the necessary warders, and pay for the requisite appliances. The expense involved in this way has been found so heavy that the Footsoray Council has discontinued the works in progress on the Footsoray side of the creek, and the prisoners have returned to the hulks. The'prisoners lost a considerable amount of time in consequence of the wet - weather-, and the warders’ wages during these idle days swelled the cost of the work done to something approaching the price of contract work.