RANDOM SHOTS

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 237, 3 October 1908, Page 14

RANDOM SHOTS

BY ZAMIEL"

Some write a neighbour's name to lash: Some write —vain thought—for needful cash. ': Some write to please the country clash, And raise a din. for mc, an aim I never fash— 1 write for fun. I am waiting anxiously to see what the 8.M..V. is going to do about all this trouble ever the alleged boycott. 1 certainly do tliink that "hen a man is a properly qualified doctor or surgeon, and there i's nothing against his personal character or his professional reputation, it ought not to lie possible or legal for other doctors to refuse to consult with him, or to assist him, ju--t because tliey do-nt agree with him precisely as to how much he ought I to charge for his services. But they do a great deal worse than this. The other j day in one of our suburbs a man was lying ill in his house, with his wife to look after him. and do the housework between | whiles. Then his little girl suddenly took ill. and the poor woman sent out for a nurse to help her. The nurse came and | began to assist with the child. But when the doctor arrived the -nurse took her hat, | and said she must be going. Why? Oh, j well, flu: doctor tvas on the B.M.a" blacklist, and the other doctors had told her that it" she took his patients they would not send her any of theirs. What do you think of that, gentle reader? But let us contain our souls in patience till the worthy doctors have held their meetings, and decided what to do. I tliink it about time somebody arose here to prevent the sale of novels of the Victoria and Elinor Glynn school. I tru.-t that 1 am not unduly sensitive on in-oral subjects; anyway. 1 am sure that •1 don't pretend to be any better than anybody else. But 1 do emphatically draw the line at books of the "Five Nights'* and "Three Weeks" kind. They, are -doubtless entertaining, and they probably throw some light on certain aspects of life. But they really are so unnecessarily indecent and suggestive. And if that is how they strike mc, who have seen a good deal of the under side of life, what sort of an impression are they going I to make on the boys and girls at school, | who in this democratic country read anything they can borrow? I remember, over] a quarter of a century ago, the "Saturday Review"' began its comments on •"Ouida's" latent with these thrilling j words: "This is a book that any daugh- | ter may safely give her mother to read." a-oor "utiKia:" in those days we thought •that -he was improper; but we didn't | know anything about Victoria Cross or Elinor Glynn. Yes, I am sure they ought i to be stopped, and I am surprised that the booksellers haven't spontaneously come to that conclusion long ago. As a journalist, I am inclined to think that the most interesting episode of this I weary and dreary session was the debate I on the "gag" clause in the Second Ballot Hill. It was remarkable for the Iri.nk confession of quite a number of nputable politicians they they are fafraid of the newspapers. Though I have had some experience of the eccentricities of politicians, I w-as just a little surprised at this. But they said so quite openly and apparently without the least sense of shame. They pointed out that newspapers are in the habit of saying unpleasant things about candi- ' elites, and that candidates wouldn't have a fair chance of getting back at the papers in the interval between the twe- ballots, and so the Press ought to be muzzled. It seems to mc absolutely scandalous; but there you are. These men are so morbidly sensitive albout/themseives that the bare thought of criticism is more than they can stand. Of course they didn't put it like that. One of them talked about "guttersnipe" newspapers—l rather fancy that New Zealand journalists will remember him ivhen the right time comes; and another talked about newrspapers being bound hand and foot' to the Liquor interest—it is hardly necessary to add that he is a Prohibitionist. I wonder -why these men don'tiave the moral courage to say this sort of thing to journalists when they meet them. When they go back to their constituencies they -will he -what Parliamentary candidates al;wavs are? the mikfest mannered, nicestspoken, svravest and blandest men you ever saw. But unless "I am altogether mistaken in my estimate of journalistic Svtnnaa. nature, a. day -will come! -good folk who -were •so enthusiastic about the unfortunate ."Lionel TiuTiy think aioirt him now. I met any number of people who solemnly believed him to be sane—in iwiich case they ought to have voted for ihajigiiig him:; but with charming illogicality they desired that he should be set at liberty on the ground that he is "quite safe.'* Well, he doesn't seem to safe even in Lyttelton Gaol. He ibas-tried to set fire to the hospital there, iand he has made at least one ingenious and desperate attempt to get away by setting his own cell alight, and fixing up a lay figure to represent himself for the "benefit of the warder. As it happened, several warders arrived at once, so that his little plan was frustrated. But sorry as one may be for the poor fellow, I should think that these fire-raising escapades just about settled the argument as to whether he is fit to be at large. I never did think so, and I think so less than ever now. Another instance of a miscarriage of justice! The two men convicted of murdering somebody at Nelson some time a«ro are now exonerated by the confession of tlie man who perjured himself to incriminate t-heni. 1 wonder what Government vain do to recompense these unfortunates for all that they have gone throush. But since their experience with the indefatigable Mr. Meikle. I rather tliink that Ministers will take careful precautions l>efore binding themselves down to accept claims for compensation. By the way. talking about the Meikle case. I observe that Mr. Lambert, who reaily was the cause of all the trouble, has now discovered proofs that will convince anybody that he ought never to have been sentenced or punished. Verygood—l am only too glad to hear it. But isn't this kind of thing inclined to shake one's confidence in the way in which "the eternal principles of justice" are sometimes administered? Way, if the jury had followed the judge's summing up in that Connelly ease, those two men at Nelson would still be under sentence for murder. Yes. queer mistakes are made by law and lawyers and judge and juries now and then, .-yon when they are all doing their j very best. j