ON THE WATCH TOWER.

Evening Star, Issue 14512, 2 November 1910, Page 2

ON THE WATCH TOWER.

, • [By AMEi.3 'l* glory in tiro independence of the Judges. ‘ They refuse to wash political dirty linen. They refuse to take order* > from the Government, or even from the House. That is all as it should be. I think that thev felt that they made a mistake in undertaking to investigate the ■ fiimoua voucher business, and aro ■ resolved not to be drawn into hunts alter an ignis (atuus again. The relation of the Courts to the Government seems to be one of th*' questions which political changes is bring ing more and more to the fore. Air Peter •Howling, who led the recent civil Avar, billed the coal strike, was sentenced to ihree rears, under u law passed for the Mirposo. But as an election was approachng the Government responsible for the ■aw wrote off eighteen months of the con- ■, cnee. The party to which Mr Bowling belonged iron by a nose at the polls. They ;io sooner grasp the reins than they order ■ he release of Peter, who had served seven or eight months. lam not complaining of his release. Society does not want revenge against the individual. Still, there is a new element in this use oi political victory, and it may grow to be a grave matter. Perhaps the Labor party sacs a precedent in the ancient custom of Ivings to release prisoners at their coronation, and is not the Labor victory the irowuing of a new King?

Even more significant than the- release of Mr Bowling is the determination not to execute Phillips, who murdered and buried his wife and little girl. The case appeared to mo to bo a shockingly bad one, and highly suitable for the extreme penalty. The Ministry, however, hold that the “death penalty was unlikely to deter other criminals who were likely to commit similar offences in a moment of excitement.” So they will take steps to see that the man is never released. I wonder whether the decision in this case is to be taken as indicative of tho views of tho Labor party, or whether it is onlv another coronation act of clemency. The feeble plea “unlikely to deter others" looks like a statement of policy, and tho decision of the Labor Government in South Australia to reprieve a wife murderer indicates the same bent of mind. If so, we may by-and-byo have murder us cheap in Australia as it is in America. A little while ago the President of the French Republic refused to sign any death warrants, and there was a groat increase of murders. That is to say, the President gave away .the lives of a number of citizens rather than do a disagreeable duty. The executioner has now been reinstated in France. Switzerland was for a long time the country to which the no-hanging party pointed with confidence. Switzerland, however, has backslidden because of tho great increase of murders.

Several American States have tried to do without the death penalty, and their experience was that there were more murders by local people and that would-be assassins from other States inveigled their \ ictims into the no-hanging State to kill them. A number of cases of this kindafforded most damning evidence against the degenerate idea that the death penalty is not the most powerful deterrent. American States that tried to substitute lifelong imprisonment for hanging also made the discovery that a man without hope of release, and without fear of death, had no motive whatever to restrain him from killing a warder now and then, when his tempo turned that way. The mishaps to warders during the reign of the Abolitionists always rose rapidly. These facts seem to me to prove that the Government that shirks an unpleasant duty, under the cover of humanitarian phrases, is really playing with the lives of innocent people. Taking (he Bowling case and the Phillips case together, we may draw an inference like this : A loyal trade unionist kills a blackleg, a boss, or a capitalist. Ho knows lhat he will not be hanged, and ns to his imprisonment, that will only last till his own party returns to power. How docs that look? *#*»**•*

In certain moving pictr-e entertainments the first picture consisted of u row of ladies in enormous hats, well tilted back. Nothing else can bo seen. .All together they remove their sails, and reveal rows of smiling men behind, who clap their hands in approval. Of course there is laughter, and the ladies in the audience take the hint. Mr Curzon, a wide-awake London manager, wishing to draw the men by assuring them that ho would protect them iu their right to see what was going on, and wishing to get noticed in the papers, entered into a conspiracy. ITo arranged with a Mr Danns to arrange with his obedient wife to wear a mainsail of a hat at Cnrzon’s show. She was to be politely asked to remove it, and refuse. Then she was to bo remonstrated with, and still refuse. Then she was to bo threatened, and remain obdurate. Finally, she was to he ejected, still refusing and struggling. .Alt this was carried out to the letter, whether with or without a rehearsal does not appear. It is not clear whether this was intended to be the whole of the service, and that Curzon on its completion refused to pay and was sued, or whether tho lawsuit was part of the arrangement. If the former, then Mr Curzon playtd low down on the woman who did a very unpleasant service for him. If the latter, and if he now pavs for the notoriety he has gained, he ought to bo held guilty of contempt of court for 7 using the august machinery of the law in a mere trick. Ido not think the Judge believed the court case to be a sham, or ho would have had something to say about it that neither party would have enjoyed. Ho found that there was an agreement, but it was “illegal and against public policy.”

It is to hoped that .ladies will not suppose that it is the removal of hats that is contrary to public policy. The words refer to arran to keep them on. That is against r .ic policy. It is one of the I‘ccentrici.i.j of our custom that tho sex that usually wear a small hat, or a cap, should uncover, while the sex that knows no limit to top hamper should remain lull rigged. Is it St. Paul who is responsible? I’m afraid so; but, poor man, he did not foresee the fashions. I have read recently of a clergyman requesting tho ladies to remove their hats in church. Tho request was entirely reasonable, but, like Mrs Danns, tho great majority gave no heed. They stuck to St. Paul : “If a woman be not covered, let her also be shorn.” One would expect that in this matter St. Paul would have insisted on Jewish observances. Yet he says that a man praying with his “ head covered dishonoreth his head.” This is quite contrary to the present-day custom among the Jews. They worship with their hats on, and a Jew, talcing an oath, in court, will first put on his hat.

George Fox, the virtuous but eccentric founder of the Quakers, made it a high point of religion not to remove the hat to any earthly dignitary. A Christian ought to suffer death rather than take off his hat to the King. Turks, he said, never show their bare heads to their superiors, and surely Christians ought to excel Turks in virtue! When before tho Chief Justice—for he was a persecuted man—he refused to remove his hat. Being asked for Scriptural authority, ho said : “ otiadrach, Meshach, and Abednsgo were cast into the fiery furnace with their hats on.” According to Fox, the Chief Justice had no answer ready except “ Take him away, gaoler.” Long afterwards, when George 111. visited Ireland, a loyal Quaker citizen had to meet His Majesty. He got over the difficulty by leaving his hat at home and joining the hatless brigade for tho day.

• »*«««* It seems as if the fanaticism and the polygamy of Kua, the Urewera prophet, may turn out a good thing for the country. He is an upstart, and has come to unexpected • authority. He has tasted the sweets of luxury and display, and will not be able to stop, now he has begun to sell land and to order, by wire, cargoes of .. desirable things for' himself and his The position is this : A tribe of least-civilised Maoris hold a vast

block ot very valuable territory. _ There ire probably millions of aoree of it. Of course, more than 99 pet cent, of it ie lyinc: waste, not enriching the Maori, and ’olockins European progress and comnunicat ion. If by any means these natives can be led to sell their waste lands freely to the State it will be a consummation Jovoutly to bo wished. I don’t want to seo the Maori impoverished, but I am tired of him as a dog in the manger. I don’t want to seo him begging his bread, but I seo no reason why his descendants should become immensely rich .by the labor and enterprise of white men. The European landlord is objectionable enough, but the bloated, lazy, horse-racing, motorcar Maori is an affront to our civilisation.

If w© were strong-handed enough, the best course would be to compel the sale to the State of all lands that the Maori can’t use, and to invest the purchase money in a perpetual pension scheme for them. But the Maori could not be brought to sell peaceably on those terms. He thinks of the not of the future. Ho wants a good time with the money, and after that let the sky fall. Let him have his good time. It will pay the country to pension him if the people can only bo settled on his unused lands. .Much strong language was used sixty or seventy years ago about the acquirement of Maori lands by .Europeans. They were described as “robbing and plundering the natives of their lands. ’ No “oubt they got land cheap, but there were no steamers in those days, no popula-tion-and no market. The Maoris had no sort of use for their vast territories, and they got something in exchange which they preferred to the land. Looked at from the standpoint of the interests of humanity, I think these reviled “land sharks” rendered us all a service. At least, I regret that my forbears did not acquire a good district or to.

Back in 1839 Dr J. D. Lang, of Sydney, visited New Zealand, and wrote four letters to Lord Durham, governor of the New Zealand Land Company, in which he recites some of the missionary purchase.of these days. Dr Lang had a largo infusion of gall and pugnacity in his makeup, and his letters make spicy reading at this distance in time, though some of his victims squirmed when they were first published. A quotation will illustrate what I say.

Mr S., for exa nple, a lay missionary from New South Wales, son of a respect able emancipist . . . bought a large tract of eligible land from the native: having a frontage of from four to five miles on one of tiro navigable rivers in tiro Bay of Islands, for two check shirt? and an iron got, or go-ushore , as it is called by natives! I was credibly informed, moreover, that Captain Blenkirrsop, master of a South Sea whaler . . . had, in entire ignorance of Mi S.’s previous purenase, bought the verysame tract from some other person, who, it seems, pretended to be its proprietor. During Captain Blenkinsop’s absence his agent erected a house on the land, as the captain intended to settle there. No sooner was the house finished than Mr S. gave the agent- notice to quit, and produced his deeds. On being remonstrated with for allowing the building to proceed, Mr S. coolly replied that the house rendered th) land more valuable to him! I refrain from making any remarks on this transaction; but Mr- S., your Lordship will observe, is a native of Botany Bay, who has exported in his ■ own person a portion of the surplus Christianity, forsooth, of his native land for tiro moral advancement of tiro aborigines of New Zealand. Dr Lang has a curious way of refraining from making any remarks! I have littie doubt that Mr S.’s story would put a verj different face on the matter, but I do not know where to find his reply.

Mr F-, who was a journeyman coachmaker, and by no means of Apostolic character either, in the village of Parramatta, in No.v South Wales, where he was engaged as a lay missionary for New Zealand by the late Rev. Samuel Marsden, has purchased, forsooth, from the natives a tract of land to the north of the river Thames, having a frontage of from thirty-live to forty-live miles on the Pacific Ocean! 1 could not learn how far back from the sea Mr F. goes, o? what th: valuable consideration had been for tills princely estate. ... It is very difficult to get the real extent of European estates in New Zealand There is a laudable obscurity on the subject in particular cases. Mr John Wright, for example, a respectable settler and merchant at the Bay of Islands, has a pro pertv in that neighborhood. Three of the boundaries are well defined “by the salt water in front and the lauds of other proprietors right and left,” but the fourth boundary is “as far back as the said John Wright shall think proper.”

These vague boundaries were subsequently attended to, and wofully contracted by the Crown. A very lengthy inquiry by a Special Committee of the House of Commons, about tho year 1843, elicited some strange stories. For example, two tribes situated in Waikato and the Thames disputed tho ownership of a largo block lying between them. They were in danger of going to war over it. Their missionary, the Rev. Mr Williams, said: “ You had better agree to give it to me.” Both parties said that was the better way, and they gaze him the land. Some time afterwards Mr Williams said to one of .his lay missionaries: “ Would you like some land?” He said he wouldn’t mind having a bit. “ Well.” said Williams, “there is that block that the tribes have given mo. 1 don’t want it. You take it.” He was a Scotchman, and he took it. It was forty odd thousand acres 1 His boundaries were vent severely revised by tho Royal Commission. The incident, however, shows how little value was placed upon the land in those days, either by the Maoris or Cue Europeans.