NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1224, 5 September 1911, Page 6

NOTES OF THE DAY.

Wβ are a little surprised that it has not occurred to any member of the House of .Representatives to ask Mn. Millar the reason for his extraordinary delay in bringjng down the Railways Statement for the year ended March 30 last. It is just forty days since the session opened, and Me. Millar appears either to have forgotten the Statement or to be unable to bring himself to give it up. In 1907 the Statement was presented to the House on July 9, or only twelve days after Parliament met. In 1908 it was available on July H or only fifteen days after the opening of the. session. In 1909 the real session did not begin until October *7, and the Statement came down in 20 days. Last year a much longer time elapsed between the opening of Parliament and the publication of this very important State paper, but even then it was out by August 17. Thqre is of course nothing to prevent tlie Statement being put in hand on April 1; and it certainly ought to bo completed within three months, so as to be ready for Parliament almost as soon as it meets. It is possible—and wo should like to think that it is the actual case this time—that the delay may be accounted for by a sudden decision on the part of the Minister to make his officers present him with the novelty of a really complete, intelligible and candid survey of the railway year. Should this turn out to be the explanation—the Statement itself will settle the point—we shall think the delay more than excusable. But, if not, then the true reason for the delay ought to be given. There is somo interest for New Zealanders in a belated review in the Manchester Guardian of Messes. Le RossipNOL and Stewart's book State Socialism in New Zealand. This work, which we noticed at some length a-year or so ago, is on the whole a very careful survey of the position of this country as a subject of Socialistic experiment. The Manchester Guardian, which is the best Radical organ in Great Britain, notes that the "general verdict" of the authors is somewhat non-com-mittal, and comments on the "extraordinary prosperity" of the country, which, as is pointed out, was obviously clue to factors outside the Government's control, such as the climate and the discovery of meatrefrigeration. The Guardian's review, which is a short one, did not take any account of the fact that tho "prosperity" of the country is in large measure merely the enjoyment of borrowed millions. Sir Joseph Ward himself confessed this truth when in a moment of candour he stated that if borrowing ceased disaster would arrive at once—an interesting commentary on the effects 'of twenty years of "Liberal" rule. After referring to the "all-too-lightly ballasted finance of the Government's business enterprises," the Guardian says: Tho excursions into State enterprise have, not failed; most of them pay; on the other hand they are not roaring successes either in respect of profit to the State or of cheapness to tho consumer. Tho State railway system has saved tho country from trust corruption, such as flourishes in tho United States; on the other hand it and the development policy have, led to much political corruption, the Government buying tho .suppon of constituencies by doles of local public worts. On tho general result in the way of wealth-distribution it is easy to "exaggerate. Tho statement that there are no millionaires andino poor in New Zealand must bo accepted with large reserves in both directions. A young and rich country with pl?nty of land, with a twenty years' huge business boom, and with ii pretty limited amount of immigration is bound to develop not only great wealth per head, but a great diffusion of wealth. Coming from such a friendly source as the Radical Guardian, which, as we have often said, we always admire just as much as we disagree with it, this passage should make tho honest Radicals who support Sin Joseph Ward do a little revisory thinking. It is with a certain pleasure that we read the speech delivered by Sir. Josf.pji Ward last night at his party's social. For we feel quite certain now that we may criticise him freely without the smallest fear of hurting his feelings, so serene is his faith in himself, so perfect his self-satisfaction. No doubt he was stimulated by the recent blushing admission of Sin John Findlay that he (the Attorney-General) had not "left tlie path of_ rectitude" in public life, '''and, I think 1 may chum, in private life." One would hardly expect Sir Joseph Ward to lag behind his colleague. He could hardly surpass the modest self-eulogy we' have

quoted, ovon if lie had felt inclined iq try, but he almost equalled it with his iuunhlo confession that certain anonymous but none the loss ''responsible" men hud said he had not made a. single mistake in judgment at Home. Who would dream of intrtiding upon his rapt contemplation of his perfections and his kindly thought that New Zealanclers should congratulate themselves upon it with a reminder of the treatment the other Prime Ministers accorded his principal proposal and of the relief with which an indignant New Zealand public and press heard of that treatment? As a plain matter of fact; we fancv that most people, reading how the Pisijie Mixisteu presented such a large bouquet to himself, will think that his baronetcy has rather turned his head. Accordingly they will not appreciate as much as they would'like to the 'minor bouquets that he remembered to present to New Zealand itself. They, will probably feel a good deal ashamed of the whole foolish speech, and especially of the indescribably ludicrous reference to Australia. The public are beginningto see their titled democrats in their true colours. The escape of the convict Powelka from the Terrace Gaol under circumstances which point to cither carelessness or connivance on the part of someone within the gaol has naturally caused a great deal of comment concerning our prison methods. We have no doubt that the particular circumstances under which Powelka succeeded in breaking out of prison are being fully investigated, and that someone will bo brought to task. But the escape of Powelka is really of lesser importance than the evidence it affords of the existence of a system which permits a notorious gaol-breaker of his claEs to be confined in so unsuitable a prison as the- Terrace Gaol, and situated in a community where the prisoner is likely to have friends ready to assist him in the event of his escape. It is an amazing thing of. course that after one attempted and one successful escape from the gaol within a few days, Powelka should have been able to again make his way out of the same prison, and this time get clear away. But who was responsible for him being kept at this particular'prison? It is not as though the man were serving a short sentence—he was committed to prison for 21 years, and despite the fact that he is a notorious gaolbreaker, and that on a previous occasion when he escaped from custody he led the police such a chase that a whole countryside was disturbed in the effort to recapture him, he is sent to this tumble-down old prison to undergo his long term of confinement. We hear a great mai\r' complaints about the methods latterly introduced in connection with our prison system, and it is about time that some inquiry was made on the subject in Parliament. Sir John FiNDLAY has interested himself in the question, and we have given him credit for good intentions. Unfortunately the tendency seems to be towards slackness and a lack of discipline which can only have very evil results. CLs'E of the curious features of last Friday's debate on the Hutt Railway and Road Improvement Amendment Bill was the Pr.niE Minister's denial that he had said in 1903 that the railway and road work would cost only £100,000. Mr. Luke and other members produced the Hansard report of a speech made by Sir Joseph Ward in that year, and read sentences which they submitted would bear no other interpretation. The Prime Minister plainly and flatly denied having made any such statement. He did not try to explain how he had come to be so grievously misunderstood. That task was left for the Hon. J. A. Millar, who put forward the theory that "in the speech which had been quoted, the Prime Minister had been speaking of the' railway, not the road, as members would have suen if they had read the whole speech. The Bill of that year was the Hutt Railwaynot Railway and Road—Bill. Now, we hare gone to the trouble of looking up a copy of the Bill of 1903, and we find thatj as originally introduced, and as it stood when Sin Joseph AVard, in moving the second reading, made the reference to £100,000, it was headed "Hutt Railway and, Road Improvement," and the full title ran: "An Act to authorise tho acquisition by purchase or reclamation of certain lands for tho purpose of improving tho Wellington-Hutt Railway and Road, tho disposal of surplus lands, and to provide lor the control of the now Hutt Boad." Clause 4 authorised the Minister for Railways to construct railways, roads, and streets, and in particular "a road or street of a width not less than 80ft., in lieu of the road or street now known as the Hutt Road.' , Clause 5 empowered the Colonial Treasurer to raise "for the aforesaid works" sums of money "not exceeding in the whole the sum of £100,000, and not exceeding in any financial year, ending the 31st day of March, the sum of £25,000." That was the Bill which, according to Mr. Millar, did not refer to the Hutt Road. It was the Bill which according to Sir Joseph Ward's wild statement of last Friday authorised not the estimated total outlay on the work, but only an instalment. Its plain terms are sufficient to show the real nature of their clumsy evasions.