The Press. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1889.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7421, 21 September 1889, Page 4

The Press. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1889.

One of the most amusing incidents of tne closing days of the Session was the effort which wae made on the part of some members of the Opposition to bring the management cf tne "railways under the reriew of the House of Representatftea.', There waa apparently an impreeeion in the minds of' some members that a dissolution might take place before next cession came round, and* it was therefore considered of the utmost importance that no opportunity should be missed of bidding for wh,at jte called the working man's vote. Accordingly, the question of the wages paid to the railway workmen was at once seized upon as a means of making a demonstration. Some rumour had been put in circulation to the effect that the Commissioners contemplated) making certain reductions in the* * ' j|

wftgßU pad to Callway. surfacemen and others. The report, it is quite Jiltely, had been originated for the very purpose of enabling a debate to take place. pa the . question. Bub whether thk waa the case er not it furnished the opportunity which was wanted, and was promptly laid hold of by Mr. Hutchison and others. The member for Wajtotara, while deprecating political 1 interference with the Commissioners, nevertheless expressed the opinion that such a step, if taken, "would justify the cancellation of the Commissioners' appointment. , * Mr. Ballance later on followed in the same style, distinctly holdiug out the threat that a reduction of wages " would be the speedy termination of " the Board's existence." Other members took up the question, and " urged '•the Government to prevent ,thia " reduction from being made." We have no information on the subject beyond what was stated in the House, but the chances are that there was not thealighteet foundation for the report which gave rise to the debate. The Minister of Public Works stated that as far as he knew there was no intention on the part of the Commissioners .to reduce the rate of wages. The whole affair was in all probability a got up thing to enable certain politicians to earn for themselves a little cheap popularity at the expense of the Commissioners. The ridiouloua part, however, of the whole business was the 1 appeal which was made to the Government. Members know perfectly well that Ministers have now no more to do -with the management of the railways than the man in the street. The Government Bailways Act which created the Commission provides, with the most minute care, for relieving the Government of the day of any sort of responsibility for the management of the railways. Indeed this was the purpose for whioh the Act was passed. It had been found that? the politioal control was so unsatisfactory, and the pressure which had been brought to bear upon Ministers so injurious to the best interests of the country, that it was: resolved to bring about a complete change. So strongly was this view held that the second reacting of the Bill was carried by a majority of 51 to 6 votes. The House when it came to that decision knew perfectly well What it was doing, and that it was depriving; members of all future opportunity of interfering with; questions affecting the - general management. The change was effected under strong pressure from the constituencies, immediately following the general election. Many who voted for the measure, no' doubt did so with a bad graoe, and with a feeling that they were throwing away a very useful political weapon. But the force of publio was too great to be resisted, and the Bill became law without any serious opposition. There have been signs recently of a determination to have this'; as well as several other reforms reconsidered, on the first convenient opportunity. The public, when ihe> time comes, [will no,; doubt know in what manner to treat such attempts should they «ver be seriously made.

Mr. PABNBUi'a Eiioburgh speech on the Special Commission is a vigorous attempt to discredit in advance the verdict of the three Judges, whatever that verdict may be. He begins at the beginning, reminding his audience that he demanded an enquiry before a Select Committee of the House as soon as the forged letters were published, and that the request was refused by the Government. He also states that his reason for noo prosecuting the Times in the ordinary Civil Courts was that the powers of the Law Courts were insufficient for the purpose of obtaining the evidence which he felt it was neceesary to obtain, and that " nothing but a special tribunal constituted for the purpose would be sufficient and adequate." The Government accepted this view and appointed the now celebrated Royal Commission of three Judges. Mr. Pabitoll takes no exception- the personnel of the Commission, bat inveighs vigorously against the terms of the reference, which would have suited his party much better had the inquiry been confined tto the history of the letters only. l j ? The issue was framed in such a/ii&ju^r. ,, he said, "as to make it impossible for us to lead directly to the inquiry of the only matters —the genuineness and authenticity of the letters—in wbioh the publio took any concern whatever." That, however, is just where" "JStiC Pabnell and the Government part company. The Government hold to the view that the main issue heiore the Commission and before the nation is, whether Parnelliem and crime are related to .one, another as cause and effect, ..and that' the question of the < authenticity of the letters is a subordinate issue, of great interest it is true, but not one condusiyely .affecting the main question* ThVtenas of the reference bear owfe this view of the scope of the Commission, and the Judges have very properly adhered strifitly to the questions referred to them. Accordingly, when Sir CaißLEa- KU33BLL asked for the pro<3aeti<Hv 6f> the books of the Loyal Irish and Patriotic Union by way of showing that they had furnished «Piepp - with, Sir Jambs? £ Hidhnnr ' such evidence was inadmissible, ■ inasmuch m o Jhe. _ T rona „ which Pigott money ooulu' not itnke the

letters either more genuine or more spurious, and was therefore an irrelevant subject of inquiry. It is difficult to believe that Mr. Parnell's counsel could have expected any other decision, and their withdrawal from the Commission must be taken, nob so much as an expression of their own feeling as leaders of the Bar, but as a piece of party tactics demanded by their clients in order to convey the impression to the public that Mr. Parnsll and his followers are no longer bound by the decision of the Judges. Mr. Parnell in his speech did all that he could to help that impression, but we cannot say that he succeeded. "I tell you, ladieaandgentlemen," he said, "that had I known that the terms of the reference cloaked up this conspiracy, covered up its origin and its source, I never would have put my foot inside the door. . . . This Special Commission Act was drafted by the Government lawyers after consultation with the Attorney-; General. It must have been . de-'j liberately drafted for the purpose of| cloaking up this conspiracy, and of;

preventing us from showing P money and by what men: thes/obw $ wwe fcwtfucea. It would not b^'foffS i to the meanest criminal on hfe *J \t* 14 charges niafc e3£SM made by men oF3 n S I disreputable, and bad character. jT" | that opportunity has been J Now this sounds exceedingly pianist' but* a moment's reflection twill si, U that it d6es'not touch the q u «J Ot § whether the charges made in up* 1 1 nellism- and Crime " are true" or fok", 1 Assuming it to be true, as Mr. I bints, that the money whichi'waa*!y' i to Pigott by Houston was subsJo \ by prominent Unionists* Inothing further than that the UnS? I were undertaking detective *«? I Assuming it to be true that they.g^ 1 I aware that the letters were Bpurion? - a supposition absurd on the'face ofjcj , \ then they would undoubtedly I a pack of scoundrels and J* " aiders and abettors of ai {«»*» " but * that would not prove the tnfi ' or falsity of the charges which S - made by the Times against Jfo * Parnell outside of the letters ata gether? No evidence from the book ' of the Loyal Irish and Patriot! * League could discredit \ letters more than they haje been ' discredited already, butthevare^ , t ! a portion of the case before'the (jjf V mission, and the issue r, Pigott " could only be raieed to dive* I attention from the findings of the Com! X mission on the other portioaof the casa. I" If Mr. Parnell can make .good jjj, |f jCharge that certain Unionista suborned '* Pigott to forge the celebn&a letten " .that may properly be made the sab. f jeot of another inquiry, and Mr, Par. !j" KBiii says that it shall. Bublt.darh has nothing to do with the t, now before the Commiaaio]] «,,» I cannot " affect men's judgment coa> I cerning the actions of I nellite party, which is all f being now investigated. The qnsstfon. 1 of the Loyal Irish and Patriotb£g|3 I books was therefore a false im% ftonrf I it was raised astutely enough, i Irish leaders have not by theii | I drawal in any way shaken publio wj I fidenoe in the Cominieaion. Whi4 I I ever way the verdict goes, it is \ jto produce a profound impression ia ? England, where judicial deoieiona ere f held' in estimation, though'we quits ! agree with the Freeman's JourwaJthatla I Ireland the verdict will be regarded ac | no more than "the opinion of three \- English ratepayers;" ■■■.<■». ■'r -i h