TOPICS OF THE DAY

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 82, 3 October 1929, Page 8

TOPICS OF THE DAY

There iis no authority under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act for parties to accept or reject awards of the Court. The parties to a dispute are granted every facility for stating their case. While the dispute is in the Conciliation Council stage they may go further and say that they will not accept a proposal. But when the dispute is referred to the Conrt for arbitration that line may not be taken. . It would be most improper for any party to declare or hint that a decision on certain lines would lead to trouble. Such a declaration would be regarded as an attempt to influence the arbitration tribunal by threats, and it would not be tolerated by the Court. It is much more reprehensible when it comes from a member of the Court The workers' representative on the Court has expressed his dissent from i the judgment of his colleagues in the waterside workers' dispute. This he is fully entitled to, do, but it is j highly improper for him to append (as^ he does) a suggestion that the decision may lead to an "untoward happening" in the industry. In doing so he has done grave disservice to the unions by strengthening the arguments of those who are seeking to end compulsory arbitration on the ground that it is really "take it or leave it" arbitration. .

A fact which every elector should weigh well is that the railways surplus of revenue over expenditure last year was nearly £40,000 less than it would have been if no new railways had been taken over. Far from helping the burdened railway finances, the new North Auckland section known as Kirikopuni (expenditure £7481, operating revenue £2495) and the new Bay of Plenty section of the East Coast Main Trunk (expenditure £72,689, operating revenue £49,678) proved to be another old man of the sea. With a few more of these Greek gifts from politics, the Railways Department will have every excuse for becoming as irresponsible as a Parliament that votes money for a railway on the mere pretext that the line is called a trunk and not a branch. The Department is like a weighted swimmer who looks to the person on the bank for a lifebuoy and receives a stone. When the East Coast Main Trunk was. started it was heralded with more trumpets than the South Island Main Trunk, and had less water competition; yet, with the facts of one "Main Trunk" fairly before it, tho Government endorses another "Main Trunk" merely on face value. As time, goes on, the Consolidated Fund will be called on to provide a larger subsidy to meet new and foreseeable losses on added lines. But until fact of loss is evident there will be no subsidy. Last year the Department received no crcdit-for-loss in respect of new lines. Yet the assumption of their payability rests on no tangible evidence; it is merely a firm belief in what everybody knows to be untrue.

On the surface, the Urban Farm Lands Rating-Bill is an equitable measure to provide relief for borough farmers; but unless it is administered_ with' the greatest circumspection it may bring abuses in, its train. We have pointed out previously that the owner of farm land in a borough is not the only person to suffer present hardship through the incidence of rating, the,owner of residential land which is just on the margin of the business area suffers also, particularly in the chief centres. He has to pay rates, which are almost the equivalent of a rent, and he cannot always save himself by selling, as the business bujlding market can absorb only limited additions. But in the long run the owner is not the loser. He pays annually to the municipality his contribution for the benefits which raise the value of his land, but he has the value in the land which can be realised sooner or later. The urban farmer is in the same position. His land may net be immediately required for residences, but when it is so required he can recoup himself for his outgoings in rates. The difficulties we foresee as arising from the Urban Farm Lands Rating Bill are an encouragement to owners to hold for a rise in value, and a demand for similar treatment for owners of residential lands which are heavily rated within the business area. These difficulties must arise when the law states that the basis of rating shall not be the value of the land out the use to which it is put The House of Representatives did not examine these difficulties in the second reading debate. Indeed, the> debate suggested that members (with a few exceptions) had scarcely considered the Bill. All that most of them could say was that a section of people had asked for it, This reason

may be in line with the legislative policy of many members, but it is not in itself a good and sufficient reason for accepting a dangerous principle.

Wellington people will read with mild interest the latest announcement (in the Railways Statement) concerning the new station. The land for the new goods shed is being cleared (states the General Manager), and tenders, will be called at an early date. Plans are also being prepared for the station itself. When the goods shed is completed the present shed at Lambton will be removed so that the site may be prepared for the new yard and station. This is not so definite as the statement made ten or^more years ago, when a promise was given that the station would be begun within a few months. But successive Ministers and managers have learnt how unwise it is to be definite. We may at least hope now that, as the promise is vague, it will be fulfilled—and that the performance may even be better than the promise. One thing we would suggest to those who are most intimately concerned: that, if there is to be a further change of plan' or an I argument about it, the change or the ! argument should be taken at once, i and not left until the workmen are on the site waiting to clear it for the new station.

"They are not skilful considerers of human things (wrote Milton) who imagine to remove sin by removing the matter of sin." The argument of "Areopagitica" may be applied to the censorship of books, but we doubt if it is truly applicable in its entirety in the present day. It is still true that "a dram of well-doing should be preferred before many times as much the forcible hindrance of evil-doing." The State, therefore, should make its main'aim such education that the need for forcible hindrance will become les3 and less. At the present time, however, we think it is undeniable that the ability to read is greater than the capacity for judging what is read. This applies to reading of both types affected by the literary censorship: books inculcating dangerous political practices and books subversive of morality. The ideal state would be such aniversally sound judgment that the individual reader could be trusted to reject the harmful and retain the good. But we have not yet reached this stage, and until it is reached a censorship of some kind is necessary. This being so, we cannot suggest a better method than that established by Mr. Stewart when he was' Minister !of Customs, when the censorship was placed in-the hands of two eminent librarians and a representative of the booksellers. Such men are least likely to err either in severity or in laxity. They should fix a sensible standard. Possibly this may deprive the student in literature or politics of works which would do him no harm, but such deprivation is unavoidable. Censorship, however, is negative. It should not be accepted as a substitute for the positive reform of instruction in morals and politics which will ultimately make censorship unnecessary.