NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 853, 27 June 1910, Page 6

NOTES OF THE DAY.

•In giving an unfavourable reply to the deputation which on Friday urged that the. Government should undertake the whole of the accident insurance business in the Dominion, Mr. J. A. Millar emphasised, only the financial objection to the scheme. The monopolising of the business as a State industry is not incompatible with financial soundness, given certain conditions, but as 'the history of State trading has everywhere proved, those conditions—an ideal Government and an ideal public opinion—are unattainable. The greatest objections t-> the deputation's proposal, are political and social rather than purely financial, and these objections do not seem to have occurred to tho Minister, or at any rate to have counted enough with him to be worth mentioning. It is the way of the modern Liberal everywhere to look ouly at the immediate and obvious aspect of any proposal for change. We have had many examples of this truth in recent years in New Zealand. One that has always occurred to us as specially striking, and which has the present interest of being related to a question that may be raised in the coming session, is the tendency of some people to make the cost of preparing tho rolls the principal thing to consider in determining the scope of the municipal suffrage. A cable message from Sydney which appears to-day brings a fresh illustration of our point. The Solicitor-General of New South Wales, it appears, has made inquiries regarding a proposal to abolish the Legislative Council, and reports that it would mean a saving of £8768 yearly. No doubt it would,, but it would mean the production of a legislative system that would work immeasurable harm to the State. That the cost of the_ Second Chanilwr should thus enter into the consideration of the question of the form of government is proof of an astonishing shortness of vision. It is as if Britain's naval programmewere settled on the basis of the paint bill. Tiik outspoken comments of Mr. Justice Chapman at Auckland on Saturday will probably do more to iittnict public attention to tho evils of the (laming Act of two years ago than all the moralising of the antigambling party. When a Judge, speaking from the Supreme Court Bench, makes such sweeping condemnation of the harmful effects of an Ant- of Parliament more or less directly affecting the whole community, his opinions cannot be li.chUv

passed over. We have on a number of occasions expressed our strong " disagreement with the legalising of £ bookmakers, and, together with n J great many people, have been f. puzzled at the anxiety shown by cor- f tain members of the Government to ' further their interests. It is not al- , ways easy to discover tho _ reasons ; which influence Ministers in their c actions, and this is especially tho t case in regard to the legalising of i bookmakers. Sir Joseph Ward has 1 stated that the bookmakers and the 1 totalisator must stand or fall to- t gcther, or something to that effect. 1 Seeing that his Government was re- < sponsiblo for giving the bookmakers j their legal status, it is not difficult j to understand why he brackets to- ( gcther these two totally different | mediums of gambling. He, presum- j ably, wishes to shelter tho bookmaker behind the totalisator. His-pbjecfc is ( plain enough, but what possible rea- ( son can the Government have for ( constituting itself the champion of the bookmaker with all his attendant ( evils 1 . (