NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1335, 12 January 1912, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

a English dailies and weeklies which arrived by the last mail protest in chorus against the appointment of Mr. Charles Brookfield as Joint Examiner of Plays with Mr. G. A. Bedford. Mr. Brookfield is the author of "Dear Old Charlie," a play which was brought to the notice of the late Parliamentary Committee on the Censorship as the kind of thing which a censorship, if it was to oe of any use, should supAlmost simultaneously with his appointment, Mr. Brookfield published in the National lievicw an article in which he dismissed all the playwrights of the last quarter of a century l , except Mr. Barrie, as beneath notice, and defended productions of the typo of "Dear Old Charlie." Mr. Barker, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Galsworthy, Mr. Zanowill, and the other dramatists who have made the British stage respected all over the world, arc thus informed as to the sort of treatment they are to expect from the Lord Chamberlain's new expert adviser. Doubtless, Mr. Granville Barker docs not express his own feelings alone when h; writes to the Nation: "The appointment is, it is true, an insult to dramatists in general, but wo are so used to insults from the Lord Chamberlain that what is one more or less!" Mr. Zangwill takes a happier line. He begins a letter to the Westminster Gazette with the ancient saying that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. "This," he continues, "was my joyous reflection on reading this morning of the appointment of 'dear old Charlie' Brookfield. Evidently Providence—which is not without humour—has at last resolved to sweep the Censor away." After revelling a little more in the farcical aspects of the affair, Mr. Zangv.ill winds up with a suggestion: "If there is to be a censor, let him ■bs a man of sane, scholarly, and sympathetic intelligence, a man at once of the world and the study, who can appreciate Ibsen without depreciating AV. S. Gilbert, in short, a man like William Archer." It appears from the context that Mr. Archer had not been consulted, but in any case one of the great difficulties of the question is that men of "sane, scholarly, and sympathetic intelligence"! are not usually disposed to accept the position of a censor. Milton pointed out long ago that the licensers of books were apt to be the least competent of public officials, and, sure enough, the literary censorship which survived his own magnificent assault upon it fell in the storm of indignation and ridicule that beat upon the incompetence of the last holder of the office. Blount set the seal of his approval upon a production which was deemed so bad that he might have written it himself—and that was the ond of the censorship of the press. Perhaps Mr. Brookfield may bring about, in somewhat similar fashion, the freedom of the stage.

The question of railways administration will be one of tho first subjects requiring attention at the hands of the Massey Government when ■ the time comes; and in this connection a thoughtful article in the current number of tho Railway Officers' Advocate is worth noting. The writer, who plainly possesses an intimate knowledge of our railway system, _ suggests the complete reorganisation of the management of the Jkilway Service by dividing up the various Departments of the Service under responsible heads who for the purpose of the general management would regularly confer as a general committee. For instance, the Traffic Department would be divided, say, into three branches, each to be placed under' a superintendent who would be responsible for the efficient working of his Department. The superintendent of the lino would deal with all matters relating to time-tables, the working of trains, and general movement of traffic. The Traffic Superintendent would deal with all matters in connection with the working of passenger and goods traffic, and with traffic questions, such, as freight and goods charges; and in conjunction with the superintendent of tho line with the allocation of rolling stock and the accommodation at stations. Tho Staff Superintendent would deal with matters appertaining to the traffic staff, more especially in regard to the proper control and staffing of the various, stations; and the supply and economical use -of stores. The responsibility would rest on him for the general efficiency of tho traffic staff, and he would from time to time confer with the Divisional Superintendent in each island and report as to the suitability of members for promotion. And so on throughout tho whole service. Each division of tho service would be controlled by a committee which would meet at least once a month and its reports and recommendations would go before a general 'committee, with the Minister as chairman. This committee is described as being somewhat in the nature of a Board of Directors. The scheme would of course enable the Minister to keep in personal touch with the views of the heads of all the different branches of the Railway Service. Instead of having to rely as at present on 'third-hand information; or on the views of any one member of the staff, he would _have > the firsthand opinions of his chief officers and the pros and cons of all proposals connected with the working

of the railways would be threshed out in his presence by bis experts. The suggestions put forward are well worth consideration. Mn. Payne, the Independent Labour member for Grey Lynn, seems determined to have his little joke on the political situation. _ Labour, he says, can now demand its pound of flesh because it holds the balance of power. The pound of flesh in this case is the Premiership, and Mb. Payne appears to think that the Labour party, with four members in a House of 80, is entitled to demand this as well as other portfolios. Mr. Payne, we have no doubt, is quite well aware of the absurdity of this proposal and merely puts it forward as an evidence of the impossibility of Labour entering into an alliance with the Ward Administration. As a matter of fact nothing could do the Labour cause more harm than to attempt to blackmail either party in this way. The only hope for Labour lies in its ability to convince the public that its representatives possess _ a proper sense of the responsibilities of office and a reasonable conception of their duty to the country as a whole. Me. Payne miist have'a very poor conception of his fellow members and of the electors of New Zealand, if he really thinks his suggestion would be tolerated for i single moment. But, as we stated before, it is probably only his way of showing tne impossibility of the Ward Administration escaping defeat. When Mr. Balfour referred afew days ago to the wholesale multiplication of public offices, he doubtless had in mind Mr. Lloyd-George's National Insurance Bill, which opens the way for a very great amount of Government patronage. Something of what this means may be gathered from remarks made by Mr. F. E. Smith when ihc House of Commons was in Committee on the Bill:

In tlio course of the last few weeks he had received at least nine letters from constituents a-sking him to use hi 9 supposed influence—which they had greatly exaggerated — (laughter) — with ■ Mr. Lloyd-George in order thai they might receive certain lucrative posts, ranging from an Insurance Commissioner worth .£ISOO a year to the humblest position of a clerk with .£7O per annum. (Laughter.)

This was followed up by other members, and Viscount Castlereagh introduced a realistic touch by reading a letter which he had received from a medical man in North AValcs:

"May I ask you to be good onougli to give me your valuable help to procure an appointment under the now Insurance Bill? It is clear there will be Medical Commissioners appointed under the scheme, and it is one of these appointments I should very much like to obtain. Would it bo asking too great a favour of you to approach Mr. LloydGeorge on my behalf? I know a few words from you will carry great weight with him." (Laughter.)

No doubt the "laughter" was sympathetic, and we should not be i'ar wrong in assuming that much of the correspondence of members of the New Zealand Parliament in the past has borne a striking resemblance to the above. But the really remarkable feature of the incident—from the New Zealand point of viewwas that both sides of the House took the sensible, business-like view of the matter. Mit. Smith moved a new clause designed to prevent the suspicion of jobbery in making the many new appointments required by the Bill. His proposal, upon, the details of which he did not insist, was that each appointment should be made by a committee of five persons nominated by different Government Departments. Mn. LloydGeouge, in reply, instead of trying to make out that the only democratic system was that of appointment by Ministers, expressed full sympathy with the object of Mr. Smith's proposal, though he thought the Insurance Commissioners ouijht to appoint their own officials. 'Ihe Unionist leader, Mn. Bonar Law, then suggested that the Commissioners should bo asked to frame a scheme which should be laid before Parliament, so that everyone would be satisfied that they were getting the best men and that no influence of any kind would be used. Mr. Lloyd-George thought this a very reasonable request, and promised to make a statement at a later stage. Filially, Mr. F. E. Smith, being satisfied with the course the debate had taken, withdrew his clause. How differently New Zealand Ministers, during the past few years, have met proposals for eliminating political influence from appointments to the Public Service! But we are nowable to hope that, at no very distant date, the House of Representatives will give effect to the principle that the system of staffing the Departments must bo above even the suspicion of political jobbery.