NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1137, 26 May 1911, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

The Hon. C. M. Luke, M.L.C., does not appear fully to grasp the arguments of those who are dissatisfied with the Legislative Council. He is a good deal shocked at the prevalence of hostile criticism of that institution, which he seems somehow to fancy is a helpless thing that no sportsman should shoot at. If he wants to know why the public has a great deal of contempt for the Council as at present constituted, wo do not mind telling him very briefly. On each point we could give him abundance of evidence, but it will suffice to say that the public dislikes and despises the Council (1) bocauss it has become largely a clumping ground for mere party hacks and time-servers, and because for some years it has included persons who arc appallingly unfit for any public position whatsoever; (2) because, although it has frequently amended some gross errors in Bills sent up to it, the majority of its members do not dare to act otherwise, in respect of any Government Bill, than as the obedient servants of the Ministry; (3) because, when the House has been independent enough to insist on some point against the Government, the Council can always be relied upon to reverse the House's decision. In short, the Council, although it contains some excellent members (some of whom have been appointed by the- present Government, it is fair to say), yet has been converted into a safe dummy Chamber. The country wants a live Council, and it has learned by bitter experience that the present system cannot produce that sort of Council. The only thing is an elective Council. And Mr. Luke need not worry over the likelihood of deadlocks arising out of contending authorities on a money Bill. The powers of the two Houses can as easily be settled in that respect in Now' Zealand as in other parts of the Empire.

The decision of the Imperial Conference to sit in private and issue official summaries daily is one that most thoughtful people will bo easily able to approve. AVe can understand that a few newspapers may bo rather angry, but upon reflection even these may begin to perceive the advantages of the privacy that all the . Prime Ministers favoured with the single exception of Sir Joseph AVard. Those persons—they are not so many as we should like—who have read the Blue-book of tho 1007 Conference will be the first to understand the force of Mr,. Asquith's insistence that the presence of newspaper reporters would operate strongly against tlie perfect freedom and unreserve essential to the object of the Conference. It is impossible to road that Blue-book without constantly noting an atmosphere of frankness and candour that is generally absent from public discussions. There is also to ba remembered tho fact that open conferences would do, much more than restrain discussion: they would be accompanied, of course, by incessant and clamorous controveisy in the press, and the result would bo that the delegates would immediately begin to finesse. Under the eyes of the excited "barrackers," they would bo more than human if they did not quickly lose either their calmness or their candour, or both. Jin. Fisher—with a penetration that holds out the promise that he will bo of unusual value in the debates—mentioned a third objection, namely, that the occasional exclusion of the press, which would have been necessary even were Sir Joseph Ward's motion carried, would provoke injurious speculations and an embarrassing curiosity on the part of the public. Nobody has ever really thought—whatever he may have considered it expedient to saythat the sound development of Imperial opinion requires in this matter anything more than the official summaries and the Blue-book. To speak of "secrecy" is absurd, when everyone knows that the debates will ultimately be published in full, with tho necessary exception of the confidential discussions. It is impossible, we may add in conclusion, not to feel that a plea for an educative publicity conies very unfitly from the one Prime Minister who displayed quite a remarkable anxiety to burke all discussion of Imperial questions. last year, and who behaved, until he left New Zealand, as if public interest and public disciission_ were tilings to bo avoided as the devil..

It was only to be expected that tho Government, and Dit. Findlay especially, would receive a severe raking in London in connection with tho attitude adopted last session towards Mr. Joshua Jones and the Mokau Estate. Mr. Lauouchere's outspoken journal, Truth, has for years past fought the cause of Mr. Jones against the powerful interests arrayed in opposition to his claims, and the treatment accorded Mr. Jones since his return to the Dominion was certain to provoke its resentment. And there can be no doubt that so far as the promised inquiry into the claims of Mr. Jones is concerned, that gentleman has every reason to feel aggrieved. AVc notice that Sir Joseph AVard, in his reply to the criticisms of Truth, states that the Mokau matter has been fully investigated. Unless we are much mistaken, Truth, which does not go into matters of this kind lightly or half-informed, must have promptly torn that assertion to shreds. Fully investigated! Our readers will remember no doubt what sort of investigation it was that was given by the Parliamentary Committee Inst' session. They will probably recall that none of the witnesses

were examined on oath at that investigation, and that Mr. Jones and several members of Parliament protested strongly that the inquiry was incomplete and unsatisfactory. The public is too well aware of tne partisan nature of inquiries by Parliamentary Committees where the actions of Ministers are under investigation lo be deceived as to the treatment accorded the petition presented by Jin. Jones. There arc features of the Mokau case, especially in relation to the developments which have taken place since Jin. Jones returned to New Zealand, that require very close examination both as a matter of public policy and in the interests of justice. The struggle which has raged around the Mokau leases is by no moans ended, and perhaps one of the strongest evidences of this is to be found in the fact that Sir Joseph Ward has been forced to come to the defence of his colleague through the press in London. This is very significant. If the Government had been sincere in this matter, it could have avoided all this trouble by granting the full and impartial inquiry sought by Mr. Jones and urged by the Committee of the Legislative Council, which first considered the petition of that gentleman. Instead it attempted to smother up the matter by referring it to a Parliamentary Committee, the majority of whom were Government members. Sir Josepk AVard and Dr. Findlay should have known better. Mr. Jones is not the sort of man that such tactics are successful against.