TOPICS OF THE DAY.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 9, 10 July 1909, Page 4

TOPICS OF THE DAY.

Yesterday's deputation to the Hon. J. A. Millar on the subject Suspension of preference to unionists, and found the Minister in v Dismissal, commonsense frame of mind. It Avafi explained to him that ten days' suspension, whether due to slackness of trade or other cause, might constitute a dismissal for a unioni&lj but a non-unionist might be suspended for any length of time without being deemed to be dismissed. For example, two men, a unionist and a nonunionist, might be told to take a fortnight's holiday, purely owing to delirth of work for them. At the end of that time the non-unionist might be engaged in preference to the unionist although the award might/ specify "preference to unionists," as the unionist's "suspension" for the fortnight could he regarded as amounting to a dismissal. There was no doubt an anomaly which would have to be removed, conceded the Minister. Clearly, in the interest of industrial peace, the law on the point df suspension and dismissal cannot be suffered to act unfairly for any particular body of 'neii.

On another point Mr. Millar also gave a clear sensible ruling, one that should please employers as well as competent workers. He announced that the present system of employment books would be radically altered. It is not many n:onths since a leading local unionist said very emphatically that Wellington's employment books on the whole, as kept by the unions, were a disgrace ; they were not fair for the good, honest workers or fair for the employers. In the new system the old irritating method of bap-hazard is to be replaced by accuracy and neat order. The employers will not bo obliged to take men "on tlie blind." The books would be designed to ensure a clear correct record of every man's case— and "if a 'waster' tried to 'work a point' he could be easily detected." For ! this plan to dispense even-handed justice, Mr. Millar deserves the praise of employer and employed. A practical person has defined an "art union" as a collection of Art and things that cannot be used. Utility. According to this definition, the best article in an art union is the thing that is the most useless, from the practical person's viewpoint. The Government allows "works of art" to be raffled by permission of the Minister of Internal Affairs, but there is no hard-and-fast rule about the artfulness or artlessness of any given object. In a test case at Dunedin yesterday, Mr. Bartholomew ruled that an entire suite of furniture was not in [ itself a work of art. "Ordinary trade articles," he explained, "had been embellished by the addition of artistic work of a comparatively minor nature, which was an accident, not an essential to tho article." Supposing the "embellishments" had been of a kind to make the furniture dangerous for ordinary use? If the "artist's" implements had made the chairs a snare and the sideboard a trap? If the furniture had been only good for show purposes in an unused drawing-room, with the blinds •eternally down to blot out the artspoiling sun? The inference is that such goods would have been eligible for raffling in an art union. The makers of art furniture, too, may say that there are many pictures in which the art element is an "accident," and a serious accident at that, but anything in a frame may easily pass the censorial Minister's eyes. Even framed banknotes, in which the art is beautiful and much, admired, have been raffled a few times in the past. The naked note would have been forbidden, but the frame supplied the necessary circumstances of "art." In an "ordinary trade article," the useful and the ornamental may be exactly balanced on a critical point. Such an article is, apparently, of neither art union nor non-art union status. It is on the border between the two estates. Take away a little of the useful, add a little to the ornamental, and you have the "work of art." Eeverse vhe process, '<md you have a | straight-out "ordinary trade article." Is it not a puzzle? Will not somebody state a case for the Appeal Court? It is just four years since the "quatercentenary," or fourJohn Calvin, hundredth anniversary of John Kncx — a mighty man in the Church of Scotlandwas celebrated, and to-day is the quatercentenary of a reformer of still wider fame : John Calvin, who was born at Noyon, Picardy, on 18th July, 1509. In an age when theology was the study of the keenest intellects, and the foundation doctrines of Christianity were under discussion — when • ecclesiastical authorities claimed and exercised the power of death, and heresy was a capital offence, Calvin, as a theologian, stood high above' his fellow reformers, and even convinced some of his sturdiest opponents in open debate. In his twenty-eighth year, while seeking an asylum for the quiet pursuit of his studies, he. was quite unexpectedly led to settle in Geneva, where, with the exception of a brief interval, he spent the rest of his life. Here he was appointed teacher of theology ; but was shortly afterwards banished. Some four years later, much disorder having prevailed in his absence, the decree was revoked, and he gradually acquired a predominant influence in the community. He esj tablished a church polity on a theocratic basis, a system of education — his college still flourishes — and was consulted in all matters relating to civil affairs, law, police, economy, trade, and manufactures. A far-sighted administrator and oz'ganiser, he introduced model sanitary regulations, and was instrumental in setting the commercial affairs of the city on a substantial basis. All this time, he was deeply engrossed in disputations and the writing of theological works. His "Institutes," written in Latin, are still a monument of learning and of philosophical reasoning. He invented no new system and estab- i lished no sect. "Calvinism" is chiefly ! a logical formulation of the doctrines of Augustine. Its characteristic doctrines of election and predestination are embodied in the standai'ds of the Church of Scotland, but it is found among the Baptists, the Independents (the distinguished Dr. Isaac Watts was an example), and it is found even among a section of the Methodists, though Wesley's doctrine was distinctly Arminian. On the other hand, Wesley's great contemporary, Whitefield, was Calvinistic. The doctrines of the reformer, though , in their rigid interpretation they have lost to a l:yge extent their former hold, have left' a lasting mark on the churches, and his influence as an organiser has been of scarcely less importance. Possibly the promoters of Tatter-sail's Club would be grateA Club and ful for a liquor charits Opponents, ter, but it must be credited to them that they have not yet applied for one. Gentlemen opposed to licenses and to gambling seemed to be under an impression that the founders of tlie club were exerting themselves to secure a charter, and determined to "get in early" with a protest. The Acting-Piemier, the Hon. J. Carroll, assured the deputation yesterday that the club had not yet asked for a charter, and in any case the Government would not depart from its decision to grant no more charters to clubs. That resolution, which was the sequel to a lively controversy a few years ago, was wise, ond it is satisfactory to hear that the Ministry is still firm in the matter. But what evidence did thd deputation have about the intentions or policy of the club men? By Ihe assumption that the promoters were striving for a charter, an injustice may have been done to them. In the other matter, gambling, broached by the deputation, the members spoke so strongly j that they would necessarily lead CTle public to believe that they "know something." How far have they X-rayed the heads of the clubmen ': The 11 cv. J. J. North and other speakers hinted a strong belief that the club would be the happy "punting" ground of the gambler, a cosy parlour for the bookmaking spider to spread his nets for guileless flies. At present the Governmeut, ap- j parently, has not sufficient evidence before it to interfere with the promoters of "Tattersall's." Mr. Carroll said he did noL know whether the Government could interfere with any section of the community unless the members" put themselves in a position in regard to gambling which wou|d claim the attention of the authorities. He implied a promise that if the club was found to be infringing the letter or spirit of the anti-gambling laws, the Government would not stand idly by and see its own laws reduced to an absurdity.