NOTES.

Evening Star, Issue 7362, 7 November 1887, Page 4

NOTES.

"The tyranny of the democracy " is a phrase the actuality of which is being Democratic continually enforced by_ the Tyranny, actions of those who claim a

monopoly of Liberalism. One of its latest developments is embodied in the Municipal Corporations Amendments Act, brought in by Mr Ballance, who claims to be aLiberal par excellence. Its object is to prohibit any Chinese from trading or carrying on any act or industry within the limits of any borough unless specially licensed in that behalf, and to authorise borough councils to levy a fee of LIOO for granting any such license. The Bill goes on to prohibit the transfer of a license, and apparently gives power to any council to impose by-laws though this is not distinctly stated—regulating the manner in which a Chinese resident may carry on his business, for there are penalties of L 5 a-day for breaches of the by-laws. And this is emanating from one of those delightful fentlemen who have always the cant of liberalism on their lips, and who never weary of proclaiming the brotherhood of man. Close upon the heels of this high-minded Liberal effusion follows a proposition embodied in the form of a question by another advanced Liberal, who is going to ask the Government if they will have the Chinese Immigrants Act amended so that Chinese leaving the Colony may not be granted a permit to return? and—more astounding Liberalism still —if they will issue instructions prohibiting the naturalisation of Chinese immigrants? What can be the motive cause of these attacks on the Natives of the Celestial Empire. There are only about 4,000 of them in New Zealand, and, so far as we know, the majority of them are peaceable and law-abiding citizens. Not long ago the people of Cromwell gave a publio reception to a Chinaman resident there, and toasted his health in most flattering and complimentary terms. Does it not seem rawer mean and cowardly to jump on the Chinese In the manner proposed by Messrs Ballance and Beeves ? If' we Europeans cannot hold

our own against them, what becomes of our highly-vaunted Western civilisation r

The denial by Major Atkinson of the rumors

that he had invited Sir R. Stout A Stout to accept a seat in the Cabinet Denial. a 8 Attorney - General, with a seat in the Legislative Council, was direct and absolute. We believe the rumor first appeared in a Canterbury newspaper wholly devoted to the interests of the late Ministry, and it probably originated in the imaginative brain of someone connected with that paper. Now we know that the statement is of the nature which is politely designated fietion, and is vulgarly known by another and more forcible name. But why did Sir R Stout allow the fiction to pass current ? Surely it was obligatory on him to contradict it; and better would it have been for his reputation had he done so, instead of allowing the question to be raised in Parliament.

How the people valuo their electoral privileges ma y l-' 0 learned from a Franchise i* return recently laid on the table I Vnliiei?. of the House. It appears that there are 175,410 names on the electoral rolls of the Col»ny, and of these (if we include the numbers in uncontested districts) 120,538 were accounted for. As an actual fact, 112,000 votes wfere received, as against 75,000 !u 1884. One remarkable result appeal's on the record. The members elected scored 60,052, and the defeated candidates 51,869 —an astonishingly large minority. Some of the returns are peculiar. In Dunedin West only 1,403 voted out of 2,079; in Dunedin East, 1,749 out of 2.235; in Dunedin Central, 1.42S out of 2,450; and in Dunedin South, 1,369 out of 1,003 ! in all, out of 5.720 electors on the City rolls, only 5,949 exercised their piivilege, fully more than one-fourth of the whole displaying blamcable disregardof their duty to the community. It is also worthy of note that in Chriatchllrch North only 1,035 electors recorded their votes, and Sir J. Vogel could only count 779 votes from a constituency having 2,271 names on the roll; so that it would seem that the enthusiasm is not very strong even in his stronghold. The heaviest polling was at Napier, where Mr Ormond, the old member, obtained 1,008 votes, and was very closely run by his opponent (Mr Ivess), who, although an utter stranger to tho district, secured 950 votes. Five seats were iincontested, those, namely, of Wakatipu, Dunstan, Kumara, Inangahua, and Auckland Central, for which Messrs Fergus, Pyke, Seddon, Reeves, and Sir George Crey were returned. It is noticeable that there are now only three members of the House who have sat continuously since 1873 — namely, Sir Maurice O'Rourke (who dates from 1565, and is the Father of the House), Mr J. C. Brown, and Mr Vincent Pyke. Of the European members of the last Parliament, only forty-five have been returned—rather less than one-half. It is pleasing to know that every one of the forty-five is pledged to most drastic retrenchment.

Insular separation, an idea pretty well exploded twenty years ago, is to Insular the fore again, being advocated Separation, by the Hon. Mr Reynolds as a general remedy for the financial evils of the body politic. What he expects would be gained thereby were such a constitutional change practicable the hon. gentleman does not explain, or how economic reform could be effected by duplication of the machinery of government. Perhaps, however, Mr Reynolds is in favor of the sohemo proposed by the late Mr Macandrew, which means a triplication instead of a duplication by the institution of two large provinces, with a Federal Government and Parliament in Wellington. The economy of this, again, is not very patent. There would be a revival in an intensified form of all the worst evils of provincialism, whilst the General Assembly would still retain the controlling power. Mr Reynolds may perhaps say that what he intends is simply financial separation ; if so, can he state what he means by this, and how he would practically effect such an arrangemeat ? It might further be asked why ho has never used his opportunity, as the member of more than one Ministry, to submit distinct proposah to Parliament ?

It is not often that people pray to be taxed, but the Wellington tobacconists Wauling are an exception to the rule. Taxed. '•They complain that their special rights and privileges pertaining to the sale of tobacco in its many forms are being invaded. In a petition presented to the House they say that they have good cause for believing that tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes arc extensively smuggled into New Zealand, because it has come to their knowledge that these luxuries arc being hawked about the Colony, and sold at prices less than the duty payable. This they declare is injurious to their business. What an innocent state of affairs ? W T as it ever otherwise than that high duties encouraged smuggling? It is not well understood that the falliug off in the duties payable on spirits is due to the encouragement afforded by high duties to illicit distillation rather than to the fancied improvement in the drinking habits of the people. The petitioners go on to ask that they may be taxed for the value of nicotinic products, that an annual license fee of LlO may be imposed for the sale of tobacco and cigarettes, and an additional fee of L 3 for the sale of cigars. Well, if the tobacconists want to be made to pay a license fee, by all means let them be allowed to do so, but do not let it be supposed that any such measure will put an end to smuggling, etc. At the most, it will confine the evil to licensed practitioners, that is all.