The Dominion. MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 1908. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A CANARD.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 278, 17 August 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 1908. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A CANARD.

is impossible to pass without notice an extraordinary message from Auckland that appears in this issue. An assertion appears to have been made that Dr. M'Arthur, who presided over the Board set up to effect a settlement of tho Auckland tramways dispute, was given certain instructions by the Government as to the decision lie should arrive at. There are few people who will believe that the Government would be guilty of such a foolish impropriety as this, and wo should have expected that if tho assertion had come to the ears of a Minister he would merely have ■ ignored it. Nor should we have imagined that anybody would seriously ask Me. Millar for an explanation or denial. Yet it is reported to-day that not only was the Minister interviewed on the subject, but that he actually considered it his duty to deny the rumour and to make some observations upon the policy of Ministers towards judicial functionaries. To what an extraordinary pass have wc come when an interviewer can solemnly ask a Minister whether lie has been 1 guilty of gross turpitude and the Minister can as solemnly deny the charge, and deny it with sufficient length of explanation to indicate that ho sees nothing remarkable in doing so,! Wc cannot conceive of such an incident happening anywhere else in the Empire.

The incident has a significant bearing upon the industrial situation that has been created by the Government's policy during the past year of industrial disturbance. The fact that a reporter could bring tho rumour under Me. Millar's notice is equal to a volume of commentary upon the state of tho public mind upon tho-position of industrial arbitration. Such a thing could , not possibly occur where there existed that serene public trust in the integrity of'a Government .which 1 comes of a firm and unswerving guardianship of law and justice. The Government has only itself to blame for the currency of such outrageous stories as this from Auckland. Even to those who have very fully realised the great injury that the Government's policy has worked to the public reverence for law, this revelation of tho demoralised state of the public' mind will comc as something of a shock. The suggestion that the Government ■ gave secret instructions to I Dr. M'Arthur is unworthy' of the slightest credence, but if a Government may suspend the operation pf an A.ct on 'its own motion, in ' defiance of its duty arid of the Act itself —and _ 'that is what tho Government did when it allowed Dr. Findlay's definition °f a strike to rank as a repealing statute —it must not be surprised if it is suggested that it will go to any length of illegality and impropriety. i Indeed, there are some excuses for the people who may believe the absurd rum! our under notice.' They are in error in their belief, but they have some defence. The Blackball strikers siill remain un'punished. No real action has been takpn against tho men involved in the strike of bakers. ' There have been strikes at Gisborne, at Ivaitangata, at Wanganui, and at other places, and the Government has practically ignored them all. At Denniston the award of the Court is being broken daity, and has been broken for months. The award governing the Auckland tramways has been altered by an entirely irresponsible body, which the Government wishes the public to believe was set up under a section of the Arbi-I tration Act, but which has and had existence in the eye of the law—which,! indeed, had no more authority to lay' down conditions to govern the working of tho tramways than any gathering of men at a street corner. In the presence of this wholesale substitution of Ministerial ukase for statute law, it is not surprising that the public view of tho Government's relation to the law is so corrupted that almost any suspicion, however absurd, can gain some currency.