NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1193, 31 July 1911, Page 6

NOTES OF THE DAY.

Although the first few four : weck!y railway returns in each year are of no great value as an indication of tho course of the railways finances, we think it useful to keep up our monthly noticc of each set of figures. Last Thursday's Gazette gives the figures for the four weeks ended June 24, completing the returns for twelve weeks. The revenue and expenditure for tho period were as follow: Kxpoii- Net Revenue, diture. Revenue. X .E ■£ \orth ... 132,2(10 91,980 40,226 South ... 121,291 81,980 39,311 It must not be forgotten that the Northern return comes from 1171 miles of road—a much smaller system than the 1617 miles in the South. The great superiority of the Northern lines is as manifest as ever. For the twelve weeks the net revenue for the two islands is shown in the following table, last year's figures being also given: 1910. 1911. Increase. L> <£ cfi North ... 150,51S 24,082 South ... 154,143 171,630 17,493 The improved result in the South was due to a reduction of expenditure. For the four weeks ended June 12 the gross revenue from the Southern lines actually showed a fallingoff. It is already obvious that the year will end with the North Island, for all its small system, returning a larger majority of the net- revenue than ever. Wc shall soon have the Railways Statement for the yoar 1910-11, and wc shall then be able to see to what extent Mr. Millar's officials have led him into intensifying the injudicious method by which he was able to show a false improvement in that year, and from the Statement wc may also be able- to judge in what degree this policy of maintenance starvation and increased fares is at work. The public has lately been made aware of the depth and breadth of the. discontent amongst tho railway employees and of the frequency of accidents to trains. These are heavy discounts on the surface improvement shown in the figures. Mr. Millar may be trying to do his best, but he is being misled by his head office, which cither does not know much about railway policy or does not care so leng as it can impose on the Minister's ignorance of railroading.

The remarkable speeches of Mp. Balfour and Mr. Ramsay Macdokald during the discussion of the Moroccan situation raise a very interesting question. Which of the two really voices the spirit of the British people—the aristocrat, whom it is the sacred duty of Radicals to denounce as a ruthless enemy of the masses, or the democrat who stands at the opposite pole in politics? There can be no doubt that the aristocrat is the real voice, of the nation on this occasion; Me; Macdonaj.d, as so often happens with the Jacobins, is deaf and blind to the spirit of the people whom he con- ; sidcrs be is championing. In warning Europe of the etror in supposing that tlic Unionists will not rally to the last man in support of any steps the Government takes to enforce British policy, Mr. Balfour was merely carrying on the fine tradition of his party. His is the patriotism which, in time of war, forgets everything but that Britain must 'be kept supreme amongst the nations, and leaves until peace has come again the resumption of the old domestic hostilities and the settlement of controversies engendered by the war. It is impossible to say quite the same of the advanced Liberals. Almost throughout the South African war they maintained their partisan spirit and did much, by encouraging Europe to believe that Britain was divided, to "prolong and ccmplicate the trouble. Europe, it is almost an established axiom, has never been able to understand that paradoxical sentiment embodied ia Mr. Balfour's spcech. That British tradition does not run in Europe. Perhaps the attitude of the Radicals during the South African war ''.as cncouraged Germany to belie.vc that the Unionists might be glad to retaliate in the event of trouble on this occasion. Ms. Balfour's speech will have proved a crushing blow to any such expectation as th.it. What will doubtless bo most admired in his specch is his candid and simple avoidancc of diplomatic language, and his entire neglect to allow any concern for his domestic policy to qualify by any phrase his frank and entire placing of his party at the Government's disposal. It is only in Britain that such a spcech cculd be made by the leader of the forces against the Government dnring a time of unexampled heat and bitterness in party warfare.

The action of the Government in asking the Hon. J. M'Gowan to represent it in the Legislative Council during the absence of .Sir Johx Findlay has provoked a protest from the Otago Daily Times which deserves attention;

For the time being,' remarks the "Times," there is 110 Minister of the Crown in the Upper House. There is consequently, no person in that House through wh 'in the relationship of the Crown, as represented by the Governor, to the Council is maintained. Tho presence of a Minister in each branch of the Legislature is necessary to pertonpte tho Crown in tho legitimate exercise of its recognised prerogatives. Instead ol' that, the extraordinary spectacle is presented of a private member of the Council representing himself as the locum tenens of Sir J. G. Findlav. Whether Mr. M'Gowan offered the Council any proof that ho had authority so to represent himself has not been disclosed by the. report wo have received of the proceedings 111 that branch of the Legislature on Thursday afternoon. Yet, if the Council was prepared to accept the "ipse dixit" of Mr. M'Gowan on the subject, would it liavo been'equally prepared to accept a similar assurance from any other of its members? Id is proper that the unfortunate position which exists in the Legislative Council should receive public attention, and it is surprising that, no member of the Upper House has considered it his duty to comment on the extraordinary situation. But it is quite in' keeping with the slipshod ways into which the Ministry and the Legislature have drifted in the conduct of public affairs, llow can the public, be expected to have any respect of the liigh office of a Minister of the Crown when Ministors themselves show uicli contempt for responsibilities and obligations attached to their positions both in and out of Parliament?

It probably lias surprised a good many people that no mention should have been made in the Governor's Speech at the opening of Parliament of the titles so liberally distributed amongst the Cabinet in connection with the Coronation. Not even tho baronetcy—the first hereditary title ever awarded a politician in office

in New Zealand—was referred to. It would have been expected that even if the natural modesty of the Acting-Prime Minister prevented Sin J Ames Carroll from directing attention to his own titular distinc-

tion tho honours bestowed on his absent colleagues were worthy of mention. Why should they he thus slighted ! Can it be that they also are reluctant to have their success unduly thrust before the noticc oi the public, or is it that the felicitations of the Ministry and of Parliament are being reserved until the Baronet and Knight Commander of St. Michael and St. George arc present in person to rcceive them'! The only mention of the matter yet made in Parliament is a noticc by Mr. E. Newman of his intention to introduce a Bill to prevent politicians from making use of hereditary titles in New Zealand. Me. Newman. too, we notice, is keeping back his Bill until Sir Joseph Ward's return, presumably in order that he may show reason why ho should have introduced into this democratic community something which, if the professions of the "Liberal" party couat for anything, is entirely opposed to the sentiment of the country. Probably during the Address-in-Reply debate this week the neglect of the Ministry to inform Parliament of their latest achievement in securing for themselves a record collection of titular honours will be remembered --as it deserves to be.