NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 989, 2 December 1910, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

When 'Loud Morley was editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, ho received a visit from a young man who desired employment as a leader-writer. Asked what was his special gift, the young man replied "Invective." But what sort of invective 1" asked the editor. Tho young man hesitated a moment., and then replied, "General invective." We always think of this young man when Dn. Findlay Falls into one of his periodical fits of virtuous wrath. It is not only because tho public has. a right to expect every public man to be amusing now and then, and because it is only on these occasions that the public enjoys' the Attorney-General, that wo direct attention -to ' tic speech which he read to tho Legislative Council yesterday. It ■is also because, coming from such a source, such a speech may help indirectly towards the quicker growth of. tho sound public opinion that is forming against the Ward Administration, For tho rich juiciness of his special sort of rhetoric, the heaviness of the paint upon his brush, merely serve to advertise the unreality of his pious indignation and to set reasonable' thinking upon the character of the case that requires tho aid of language so singular and so ludicrous. In fact, the Attorney-General's "general invective" does his party no good, but rouses suspicions. It docs not ring true. It is.not as if the public did not/ know that" the opponents of the Government are concerned only with facts and with principles of legislation and administration. ■ There is really so much to be done in the way of exposing the recklessness, tho wastefulness, and the utter lack of principles, of the Government that there is no time, much less any desiro, to resort to the vague libels and coarseabiise to which impending disaster have forced the Government's friends to resort. '

Iti's likely that they will bo only a minority who will appreciate the courage of the Hon. W. C. F. Carncnoss in Opposing the anti-Asiatic clauses of the Factories Bill. The Bill, he said, was "another attempt to get at the Chinamen," and was "a cowardly sort" of measure; "the Europeans' had the whole thing in their own hands by riot patronising the Chinese." Mr. Paul was greatly shocked. Chinese competition, he said, had not given white labour fair play. The inspiration of the Bill was "the instinct of tho white race to protect tho white race, and that was a noblo instinct." And, like other speakers,' he went off into reforences to the difference between white and yellow ''standards." Now, we dislike the Chinese in our midst as heartily as anybody does. But can the white race, with its noble instincts draw no conclusion from, the thrift and industry .of the aliens save the necessity for legislation that may force them to go awayi Is it riot 'possible for the white race.to drive them out by the exercise of an equal thrift and industry ? Is there no superiority possible to the white race save superiority in dietary and in. leisure? Let us. get rid of the Chinese, by all means. But is it not worth while to think a little upon the roasons, on our side, why "Chinese cheap, labour" is. able..,to force us to adopt a rathor ignominious method of protecting ourselves 1

•Anything more ludicrous than the attack made on the member for Taranaki in the House of Representatives yesterday would bo difficult to conceive. Mr. Okey, it appears, wrote aletter to the Prime Minister expressing his views of tho manner in which one of the Committees of the House had dealt with a petition which he 1 had presented to Parliament on behalf of Mr. Joshua Jones. Mr. Jones considered he had been very ba'dly treated, by the Committee and he was borne out in some of his complaints by Mr. Okey in the letter referred to, a summary of which appeared in yesterday's issue of The Dominion. Because he dared to say what he thought as to the conduct of tho Committee he was bitterly assailed in the House; and an attempt was made to provo him guilty of breach of privilege. Those making this attempt would have been well advised to have left tho matter alone. Mr. Okey not only .defended himself against the attack made,' but he completely turned the tables on his attackers. He proved that the At-torney-General, who was attacked by the petitioner, Me. Jones, in his petition, had been-specially favoured by tho Chairman of the. Committee iri tho matter of receiving a copy of Me. Jones's evidence and certain documents. That, the Chairman, in fact, had . committed a breach of the Standing Orders of Parliament. The Chairman, it ,is only_ fair to state, frankly admitted this' breach which he . stated was duo to inadvertence, and in order to shorten ■ the proceedings on the' Committee. The. point is, however, that _ Mr. Okey turned the tables on his attackers, and at the same time showed causo for his own action. It is a most extraordinary thing that an attempt of this kind should be made to prevent a member of Parliament making protest to the Prime Minister when ho considers a grave injustice has been done to a petitioner to Parliament. There was a lot of talk about "muzzling" members in the House yesterday, but if a member is to be muzzled and prevented from freely expressing his views when he thinks injustice has been done by a Parliamentary Committee, it is time that people realised the sort of free speech that prevails in the highest .Court of Appeal tho country possesses.

We referred very briefly yesterday to the venomous attack made on the Opposition press by Me. T. E. Taylor in his attempt to throw on them some share of the responsibility for the publication of a pamphlet issued in Auckland attacking the Peijie Minister. We not only gave that statement an emphatic contradiction, which, perhaps, was not needed, but we. showed that tho virulent attack made came with particularly bad grace . from tho member for Ohristchurch North. It is desirable, we think, to throw a little further light on the insolent presumption of "this pattern of political propriety," as ho was styled by a fclj low member. In the year 190 ■ a ! public meeting was held in the city of Wellington, convened by a person who was advertised to make certain exposures concerning tho Colonial Bank and Sir Joseph Ward. At that meeting a bitter attack was made on tho present Peijie Ministee, and. Me. T. E. Taylob, M.P., proaidod.over that meeting, This is tho sort of language which Sib

•Joseph Ward used in Parliament concerning it: •

Tho honourable member for Christchurch City has referred to me this afternoon on the floor of tho House. Why did ho proffer his services when no decent person in the city of Wellington who attended would preside over tho meeting to which ho referred? Was it mere accident? Does'the honourable member think it was a proper action for a brother member of Parliament to voluntarily offer to go on to the platform and preside over the meeting of a man who has attempted to blackmail me and whom I havo refused to pay to withhold his filthy foul implications? At this meeting, presided over by Mit. T. E. Taylor, much of the same matter, published in the Black pamphlet, was used. And yet Mr. Taylor to-day, with'out the slightest justification, without a shadow of proof, dares to "set himself up as a censor of the press and to cast aspersions when, for his connection with a phase ,of this same matter, he was himself soundly trounced by Sir Joseph Ward in 1905. The only excuse that he could offer for presiding over the meeting referred to was that he had voluntarily taken the chair in the absence of anyone else in order that the formalities of the mceting'might be complied with. Ho denied that he had had any other association with the person who convened the meeting, beyond acting as chairman in tho manner stated. But what would Mk. Taylor have said in tho House on Wednesday morning last if it had been a member of the Opposition who had presided over that meeting ? It is time that this political posturer, with his arrogant assumption of superior virtues, was made to. understand that there are some at least who are not prepared to accept him at his own valuation. ■