RANDOM NOTES

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 112, 4 February 1939, Page 10

RANDOM NOTES

Sidelights On Current Events (By Kickshaws). The talk going on iu Europe at present seems all about the merits of burying the hatchet and picking up the axe. * * ' * Roosevelt complains that the world is sitting on a volcano, and the man in the street complains that he can do nothing but remain* a gazer. Pillboxes at intersecting fences in London are suggested as a refuge from bombs. It looks as if those aeroplane fellows are going to compel next-door neighbours in London to get to know one another at last.

The insistence that the King can do no wrong, and, therefore, his Governments can build wooden structures in situations demanding more fire-resist-ing edifices, has endangered certain citizens of the realm and destroyed their properly. According to the doctrine of some sticklers for the law, no subject cau have rights, against the State or against the Crown. From governments come all the laws, and against neither Crown nor State can a subject or even a city corporation exercise rights. The internal history of England is largely a series of ingenious methods by which citizens have overcome these complications. The fight against the Divine Right of Kings ended in a compromise. The King governed through Parliament, which was elected by the people. Very few electors, indeed, would vote for a government that demanded the right to do certain dangerous things to the detriment of those who elected them. There are certain exceptions, such as a crisis, endangering the whole community.

Despite the obvious anomalies that are bound to occur if governments insist on overriding by-laws made for the safety of a community living iu peace, there are ingenius arguments why the King can do no wrong. This unpromising start for political liberty is open to all manner of interpretations. Only chaos could result if compulsory processes could be taken against the fount of all order. All criminal processes, for example, are iu the name of the Crown, and the idea of the King prosecuting himself and condemning himself to a term of imprisonment, takes us into the realms of Gilbert and Sullivan. Nevertheless, complicated and roundabout methods have been provided for the enforcement of property rights between the King, represented in the Crown, and citizens of the realm. Certain contracts entered into by the Crown’s servants are also amenable to the law of the land by means of a petition. In the event, however, of the Crown breaking a by-law, nothing can lie done, because there is no law court in which the case may be tried or judge authorized to adjudicate.

In spite of the fact that the King can do no wrong, ingenious argument has had to be proffered when it appears that the King or the Crown has done wrong. It is argued that if the King can do no wrong he cannot give an unlawful order.’ If some presumptuous person, therefore, "said : “I did this wrong thing by the King’s order” the law court concerned could say: “We just don't believe it. This is wrong, and the King is incapable of giving such an order.” The Earl of Dauby, impeached in the reign of Charles 11, bad written authority from the King to do the act for which he was impeached. Nevertheless, he failed to get away with it. A subject injured by a Crown official can, therefore, prosecute the individual criminally, and even sue him for unlawful acts done in his normal course of duties. The official cannot hide himself .behind his official authority. The official of the Crown is sued not as an official, but as a private person. When he broke the law the Crown, which can do no wrong, washed its hands of him, so to speak. Iu the matter of damage done by contravention of city by-laws, (his rule offers a vast city by-laws, this great rule offers a vast field for conjecture.

The learned judge who has pointed out that there are degrees of drunkenness fitting for every occasion has made a statement that sets a poser. Despite modern ingenuity, there is still no instrument that will indicate to which stage anybody lias arrived. The dead drunk are obvious, provided, of course, it is a case of dead drunk and not a case of normal poisoning, or even a blow on the head, or a combination. There is one simple test to discover if a man is dead drunk. If the pupil of the eye be contracted, but on shaking, slapping. or otherwise stimulating the unconscious person, the pupil dilates, the possibility of serious head injury may be ruled out. Acute alcoholic poisoning is the only common form of coma in which tlie pupil of tlie eye will react to any stimulus except light. Nevertheless, there are pitfalls. What is badly needed is an alcoholic meter graduated to read: Dry and decent ; delighted and devilish ; delinquent and disgusting: dizzy and delirious; dazed and dejected; dead drunk.

Efforts have been made to reduce to something scientific tlie vague terms normally utilized to convey the stage of alcoholic inspiration attained. Anyone who has one drop of alcohol in a thousand in his blood is under the influence. Tliis represents 0.1 per cent, of alcohol in the blood. A percentage of 0.5 per cent, makes a person dead drunk. It will be seen, therefore, that there is very little margin between a state of happy intoxication and a condition that is by no means happy. Tlie problem is, however, not quite so simple. Tests have revealed that the tissues first, affected by alcohol in the blood are those constituting the most delicate part of the brain. This part of the brain controls the higher instincts. The effect, therefore, is different witli every person, and for that reason the reactions are different. An instrument to test sobriety, called an alcoholometer, has been used in some countries. Tlie suspect is induced to breathe down a glass tube into a bottle. if Hie suspect is sober the liquid turns pale red, if drunk a cloudy grey, lint there is no correlation between tlie method and tlie pronunciation of. say. "British Constitution.” Till something better turns up. a man is as drunk as lie looks, which is unfair to those who don't drink.

“Would you please inform me of the number of" tlie following coins, whiHi mav be offered as legal tender: Penny, threepenny piece, six;»enny piece, one shilling piece, two shilling piece ami two and sixpenny piece?’ writes "S.S.”

The honorary 'secretary of the New Zealand Numismatic Society advises that “Section 5 of the Coinage Act, 1933, provides that New Zealand coins of current weight shall be legal tender in tlie Dominion as follows: Silver coins for tlie payment of an amount not exceeding 40'shillings: bronze or cupronickel coins not exceeding one shilling. The number of tlie coins is governed only by the limit of value as stated ’’