CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12280, 26 May 1903, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE.

WEST COAST TRADE.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,—Many long and interesting letters have appeared on the Auckland and the West Coast trade. The key to this trade is Manukau bar, and the key to Manukau bar is the Waikato River. In ages long passed, when the Waikato ran past Waiuku, and entered tho sea by the Manukau Heads, there was no bar. The mighty' flood of tho united Waikato swept the Manukau Heads with a force that laughed at the power of the w e ", n t0 form a bar there. Meantime the aikato Liver was bringing down trees and U£Po , nR them on the fiat country south of Waiuku until the ancient bed of the Waikato became choked, and found its present entrance to the sea. Then tho feeble divided stream, no longer able to contend with the ocean, tho bar was formed, and all that silt and quicksand that engulfed tho Orpheus formed The most simple and effective plan of getting rid of the bar is to turn tho river into its ancient bed. and the united flood will sweep the present bar right into the sea for ever. If wo perform our part nature will do hers. The length of river bed to bo formed to bring back the old stream is not over three miles altogether of level country. We cannot estimate a tithe of the advantages this will bring to Auckland and the wholo of the West Coast population.— am, etc-. J. McEr,WAra.

PREFERENTIAL TRADE FOR THE EMPIRE. TO THE EDITOR, Sir,— we cannot see into the future we can at least see that the effects will be farreaching. It seems to mo that it will leao. in a very short tirno to the Empire enjoying free trade within itself. The tottering walls of local protection must sooner or later fall to the ground. Tho Customs dofence against tho outside world must be maintained, and the money collected will be put. into the purse of the Empire. Tho lands now held within tho bounds of the Empire are sufficient to employ all the inhabitants that can be drawn in" for the next 100 years, and then its resources will bo scarcely tapped. It is only within the last few years that the United States have done much foreign trade, owing to its "spare value" on capital beiut, fully employed within the Union in developing its local markot and providing tho necessities of new cities as they sprang up with mushroom growth. Tho growth within the Empire would astonish us if all our "spare value" was invested within the Empire; I see no reason why the capital of the Empire should not be employed within itself until every bit of spare land is put to best possible use and every possible industry set in motion ana every member of society get a living wage or a fair reward for services rendered to society The movement may have the effect of shifting population from the British Isles to places where their food and raw material is grown,_ which would make the Empire stronger in case of war. It would be a body with the heart all over it instead of at present fixed in one England. A few shots in any part of the body would scarcely be felt, as it would really possess no vital part whore a death-blow could be dealt. " God works in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform," and possibly it is better for all of us that we cannot see what is coming. — am. etc., A. SanfOßD. PRISONS AND PRISONERS. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, You deserve the best thanks of the community for persistently drawing attention to oui prison system. It is a big subject, and cannot be sufficiently dealt with in a letter, or even in a leading article. But I would emphasise your statement, that prisons in New Zealand are " mere places of punishment, with which thought of reformation is only superficially connected." I have spoken of this omission, in season and out of season, to the Minister for Justice, the members of the House of Representatives, the permanent officials, in the newspapers, etc. With all our boasted progress there is probably no English-speaking country in which less attention is given to the reclamation of the wrong-doer. •With what Mr.' Severno has said about insane criminals I quite agree. I have myself drawn attention to insaue persons detained in prison, but the medical men refused to certify as to the insanity, and so nothing more could be done. • A large percentage of prisoners are men of weak intellect, who are apparently quite unable to lead a steady, useful life, apart from supervision. These men deserve pity, and they need help. At the same time I cannot agree with you that " we shou'.d regard all prisoners as insane— and treat, them accordingly." No, sir, there are men who are wrong-doers by choice— men who plan robberies and forgeries whilst serving a sentence, who take an occasional conviction as part of the risks of the business, and who consider the excitement, tho idleness, and the retailing of their exploits to sympathetic listeners in gaol as quite sufficient to balance any little inconvenience. Allowing for heredity, defects of education, moral twists, we must still —in the great majority 01 cases—hold men responsible for their deed?.

Another matter needing attention is the largo number of hours spent in the cells by prisoners. • At present they are locked up nearly 1? hours daily. They work from eight to twelve a.m. and from one to four p.m. This can scarcely bo called hard labour. If they must be under lock and key for so Ion? a time during the winter months, why not give them useful work to do in the cell? Just think of 200 men working 39 hours a week only. Some men cannot read at all, some have no lights provided even if abie to read, and yet this absurd and wasteful system has been allowed to go on year after year; nothing is done, and if a man in my position draws attention to these matters, in his desire for improvement, it is considered almost a breach of discipline. . I should like to see a searching inquiry into the whole business by a committee or commission of one or two business men, a prison official, a lawyer, a doctor, and a prison chaplain.— am, etc., Ed. 0. Budd. Park Road, Auckland. May 25, 1903.

DR. GILES ON THE RICHARDSON TRIAL. TO THE- EDITOR.

Sir, — recent libel trial at the Supremo Court furnishes several points of interest to the ordinary citizen who cares little for legal technicalities, but much for substantial justice and a rational administration of the law.

The first consideration that suggests itself is the method in which a Court ought to deal with a party whoso overweening self-conceit amounts almost to positive megalomania, and prompts him to assail with systematic insolence every functionary and every person whom he thinks opposed to his own opinions or prejudices. The answer to this question is by no means easy, and a little consideration will show the difficulties a judge has to deal with in such a case as it has lately been the ill-fortune of Mr. Justice Conolly to be confronted with. I believe the only punishment possible for contempt of Court is fine or imprisonment, but to send an " accused" person to prison in the middle of his trial would mean interrupting a case, with a jury empanelled, witnesses, and counsel in attendance, and the evidence half heard; a state of things which would probably give unalloyed pleasure to such a defendant a? the Court had before it in the late trial. It is very true that one judge, by the personal influence of his manner and bearing, will keep an unruly person in order where another will fail; but success in this line cannot always be reckoned on. The recent trial has been spoken of as unprecedented, but if I am not mistaken it was fully equalled, if hot surpassed, in the trial of the assassin of the American President, Garfield. _ In that case all the powers of the Court failed to keep in order the accused person, who, during a remarkably protracted trial, succeeded in "turning the whole proceedings into a revolting farce, with the gallows looming in the background. Therefore, while it is fair to ask" whether a judge might not have managed better, the difficulty of the position must not be lost sight of. The next point that presents itself is the question of pleading; and I think it will strike most persons who are not personally concerned with law courts, that it is not fair or just to assume that every person charged with libel is aide to employ a lawyer to draw his pleas, and that for want of technical correctness in pleading be should be precluded from putting in evidence matters that would otherwise be allowed. Surely the judge should have powers to allow a plea to be amended ; or why should not the pleas be verbally stated by the parties a day or two before the trial, and put in propel form by the Court's officer, after the issues had been discussed before the judge and settled by him? Is it not manifest that His Honor felt that this technicality about the pleading 3 might injuriously affect the defendant, when we find him, after expressly ruling that evidence of tlie truth of the libel could not be given, allowing it to be put in to prove that the matter was of public interest, and at the same time stating that he did not think it was of public interest, and that, therefore, the evidence ought to have no weight? Thi= brings us to the third point in this remarkable trial, and probably most persons who have followed the proceedings have asked the question. What is of public inj terest' and ought the determination of the i question be loft to the judge oi the jury? i I think a little consideration, independently

of authorities,' will lead us to the conclusion that the phrase "of public interest" is, and must be, in a case of libel, a matter for legal interpretation, and should not be left to the jury. If any other principle bo adopted, every conceivable matter in which neighbour chooses to take an interest will be in turn pronounced to be a concern of public interest. There are plenty of busybodies who delight in doing what they can to make everything that their neighbours do, or leave undone, a matter of public interest, and if this way of looking at things is to prevail in Courts of law, it is not difficult to imagine cases in which the disposition to write libels may find fresh encouragement and unexpected facilities. • In saying this I have not the slightest intention of reflecting on the verdict of- the jury. Considering the way in which the case was presented to them and to the Court, I am not in the least surprised by the conclusion to which they came.—l am, etc., J. Oiler. Selwood Cottage, Patumahoc, May 21, 1903. GROCERS'' CLOSING HOURS. TO THE EDITOR. _ Sir, —1 do not for one moment question the right of any citizen to " criticise any principle of general application," but when your correspondent intimates, as in his first letter, that tc his mind "the cloven hoof of monopoly" is but thinly covered, he is leaving the " general application" of ? principle and making a direct charge which he fails to support by any evidence whatever. A reference to my reply would show him that tho " complaint of unfair competition comes entirely from _ the. smaller traders, many of them employing no labour." I also showed that the avenue to engaging in the grocery business was open to all and entirely without restriction. Under the circumstances one is led to wonder where in this case Mr. Bodley has discovered the principle of monopoly. — am, etc., H. M. Smeetojt, President Master Grocers' Union. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — am glad to see that Mr. Bodley, in his second letter on the above subject, somewhat modifies his views re the " cloven hoof of monopoly," a danger he professed to see in the attitude of tho Grocers Employers' Association. He no longer "lives in dread of it." Probably the letter of Mr. Snieeton, showing that the association includes both small and large employers, may have had something to do with the removal of Mr. Eodley's fears. If he needs any further evidence to prove how groundless such fears arc the keen competition which at present exists should be sufficient to show how small is the chance of monopoly taking hold of the grocery trade in the colony. As an assistant I must object to Mr. Bodley's reference to the Wellington Shop Assistants' Union as a catspaw used by the employers to push the early closing movement. _ The compulsory early closing of all shops is warmly supported by all assistants, because, although the recent award enables us to finish at six p.m., we recognise that unless the closing of all shops at that hour is made compulsory there is a real danger that some future award may increase the hours of assistants.

For years in tho Old Country I worked from eight a.m. to nine p.m. four days a week, eight a.m. to ton p.m. on Fridays, eight a.m. to eleven p.m. on Saturdays, and no half-holiday. The struggle for shorter hours was always with a small selfish minority, and without le<ral compulsion there is always the danger of a voluntary agreement being broken. Knowing the evil of long hours, I support the movement for the compulsory closing of all shops at six p.m. .The majority of the small shopkeepers themselves are in favour of the movement, but the selfishness of the few deprives the many of the leisure they both desire and deserve" It is surely unnecessary to point out to Mr. Bodley that it is an abuso of individual liberty when such liberty imperils the liberty of others. Ten hours a day is quite long enough for any man to follow his trade or profession, and if the majority of any trade or profession are of that opinion it ought to bo able to compel the minority to comply with its wishes.

If grocers have more time to devote to their families, and to civic and social duties, the reproach, " Born a man anu died a grocer," will have a chance of being removed. In the interests of employers and their assistants, and in the best interest of the small shopkeepers themselves, all memoers of the trade ought to support the movement for compulsory early closing.— im, etc., J. Herkick.

Eden Terrace, May 23, 1903. TO TIIE EDITOB. Sir, —Mr. Bodlcy's arguments are not quite fair, the present position being unfair in that six o'clock closing is only partial in its operation. While theoretically no one is asked by law to close, practically they are compelled to do so or pay overtime. It is. simply begging the question to say that where a number of assistants are employed the employer can take his coat off and run his shop alone. Even if he wanted to an employer under such circumstances can employ his time to better advantage in his business.

Is it fair that A, while in B's employ, should punctually get away at six o'clock, but when he leaves B's employment he may commence business next door and keep open to what hour he pleases ? The plea that work is required to bo done is beside the question. We all know that it is so, but it can be doao inside a closed shop as well as an open one. Usually it is clerical work that demands the attention of the small employer after closing time. It is also manifestly unfair that when tbrec-fourths of a particular trade are in favour of reasonable hours one-fourth should block them.

Respecting universal six o'clock closing, that is another question. My suggestion at the interview with the Premier was that the shop hours conference should have power to enable each particular trade to choose the hour best known to them as suitable. From long acquaintance with this subject I can say that, with few exceptions, all traders would appreciate the adoption of regular hours for closing.—l am, etc., R. French.

TRAMS AND CITY COUNCIL. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, —At the inquest on poor Gamble, who,, was killed by a tram in Victoria-street, it was stated by the engineer of the Tramways Company that " there was no by-law controlling the rate of speed; that the average within-the-city speed was, including stoppages, eight miles per hour" (which may be understood as 10 to 12 miles running speed): "that on suburban roads they ran at 14 miles an hour." Now, it may be taken that these speeds are not overstated, and also that they, being averages, the rate varies probably half more and half less in different parts of the road. Ido not know whether it is to be understood that some are unlighted roads along which they run at.such speed, but it appears to mo reckless procedure. We know now that it is simply consideration on the part of the Tramways Company which does not run them within the city at higher speed, because the faster they are run, of course, the more earning per car, but to my mind the running of a lumbering 10 oi 15 ton car at any such rate is far beyond safety, and possibly none other than the Auckland' City Council would have so long delayed setting out clear by-laws for the protection of men and beasts and the regulation of the noise.—l am, etc., J. Clare.

Auckland, May 23, 1903.

THE PREMIER'S SALARY. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, —I am surprised that none of your readers have* approached you on the amazing statement made at Hamilton last week by the Premier regarding his stipend. In the Herald of the 19th inst. you report Mr. Seddon as saying, " Was it fair that he (Mr. Seddon) should receive £1000 yearly, while the Inspector of Lunatic Asylums received £1200? It was nevertheless a fact." Now, Mr. Editor, this is one of the most disgraceful of the many deliberate misrepresentations made by Mr. Seddon to the men and women of this colony. Such a statement conveys to the minds of the readers, and was without doubt deliberately intended to convey, the impression thai, Mi. Soddon's income for public services is only £1000 per annum.

Unfortunately for the colony, the attitude of many of the voters upon financial matters is one of intellectual idleness; they simply will not look at oi try to understand figures bearing on the public business, so that one has earnestly to beg your readers' attention to the following very brief comparison: — Mr. Seddon's annual income, as staled by himself at Hamilton, £1000; Mr. Seddos's actual annual income, as far as can be ascertained by an outsider: Statutory stipend, £1600: house allowance, £200 ; Assets Board. £250: total, £2050. I can imagine the Premier, with that sham pathos of which he is a past master, laying his big hand on his big vest, and assuring his Waikato friends " there is something he values more than this." Mr. Seddon started the subject.—l am. etc., Audi Alteram Patrem. THE LAW OF DEBTOR AND CREDITOR. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,"X " evidently has good grounds foi complaint against the difficulty of obtaining accounts due through the law courts. But he seems disposed to lay the blame on the wrong shoulders, our present legislation being largely the outcome of the working man in politics. The wage-earners, who are inclined to repudiate their just obligations—fortunately

few do— practically snap their fingers at their creditors. ~ But when, as in the case "X" quotes, tne same law presses hard upon the worker, ne smarts under the injustice. Certainly wage should bo paid when due, and other jus. debts should also bo subject to the court's jurisdiction and enforcement.— am, etc..

THE INFECTIOUS DISEASES HOSPITAL. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—ln the discussion that has taken place respecting the proposed erection of the infectious diseases hospital at Point Chevalier, the objectors, in mv opinion, have lost Sight of the fact that by building it at the proposed site it would be in a most populous district, for sooner or later a bridge will span the Waitemata, ' between Points "Stokes" and "Chevalier," and necessarily the approaches will he thickly populated. 1 consider this a sufficient reason why 1 hospital should not be erected there. With reference to the evidence re the disposal or the plague hospital drainage, I trust we have not heard the last on that disgusting subject.—l am, etc, Citizen. May 25, 1903.

TO CORRESPONDENTS. A correspondent at Tauranga asks if any report has been made in respect to coffeegrowing at Rarotonga. Some time since, Messrs. Kirk and Buscher went to Rarotonga to report on the products of the island. Their report has not been made public, and probably will not bo till laid before Parliament. So fai as we know coffee-growing has not been a success at the islands, the coffee produced there not having accorded with the public taste.