WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Taihape Daily Times, Issue 220, 9 June 1917, Page 4

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY. A NEW INTERPRETATION. WELLINGTON, June 8. ' The statement made by the Hon. G. W. Russell in Christchurch to the effect that the Department and not ffieMinister is responsible for the restricted train service is being discussed with much animation here. Though many curious stories had been in circulation implying that the Hon. | W. H. Herries was not entirely in ac- [ cord with the policy of the executive heads of his Department, it was left to the Minister of Internal Affairs, v hen presiding over a meeting of members of Parliament called to protest against this policy, to suggest that he was a mere nonentity in the I management of the railways. Just I how he regards his colleague’s solicitude on his behalf no one so far has had sufficient courage to ask. Doubtless Mr. Russell spoke with the very best intentions, meaning to save Mr. Elerries from the wrath of his disgruntled critics, but his words were not happily chosen and they easily ! might convey to the public a wholly wrong conception of the meaning and purpose of Ministerial responsibility. THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION. Mr. Russell himself appears to have been himself a little hazy as to the true constitutional position. Speaking of his responsibilities as a member of the Cabinet and his responsibilities as the representative of the people he said when he found his duty as a Minister conflicting with his duty as a member of Parliament he would be prepared to “go out”-—to resign his portfolio. That was admirable as far as it went, but it did not go quite far enough. A Minister cannot with any propriety sit in judgment * upon his colleagues or upon any one of them while he remains within the Cabinet. He must accept full responsibilitjq not only for the administration of the department he controls, but also for the policy of the Government to which he belongs. -That is the basic principle of Cabinet rule and the only possible alternative to collective ministerial l!l responsibility is the elective executive of which the Social Democrats are dreaming. THE WAR REGULATIONS. The statement made in the “Dominion” under the- guise of an interview in which - the Attorney-General describes Sir John Findlay’s speech in defence of Mr. P. C. Webb at the recent sedition trial as “one of the most unfortunate utterances delivered by a public man in New Zealand since the outbreak of the war” has brought a spirited reply from the new member for Hawke’s Bay. - The fact Sir John emphasises is that his speech was 'not an attack upon the War Regulations, as Mr. Herdnym contends, - but upon the construction placed upon them by the counsel for the Crown. He deals with the matter p'urely from the professional aspect, gently rebuking the Attorney-General for attacking a fellow-barrister for making the best defence he could for bis client, but he promises when he meets his learned friend on the floor of the House he will have something to say about the incident from another point, of view. It looks as if subsequent developments might contribute materially to the gaiety of the approaching session. COST OF LIVING. The latest number of the Abstract of Statistics issued by the Government Statistician contains several new sets of figures bearing on the cost of living. Perhaps the interesting of them all is the table showing the average rents during the March quarter of this year for houses of various sizes in the twenty-five representative towns that are taken in , these calculations. Of course, Wellington stands at the head of the list a long way above every other centre of population. Taking the average rent paid in the four chief centres during the five years before the war as the index number 1000, Wellington now stands at 1235, an excess of nearly 25 per cent., Hamilton at 1040, Wanganui 999, Gisborne 974, Napier 973, Taihape 962, Auckland 945, New Plymouth 934, Palmerston North 890, Christchurch S6S, Dunedin 860, Timaru 860, Invercargill 764, Greymouth 740, Blenheim 736, Oamaru 711, I Qannevirke 692 and Alexandra 477. The figures, of course, can be' only ap- | proximate, but a three-rocmed house 1 in Wellington is shown as costing nearly twice as as a similar i house in ChristcMrch Moes, and as I much as a six-roomed costs in- J Alexandra. 1 ■—' '