Abundant Resource.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 850, 15 June 1888, Page 28

Abundant Resource.

A THIGH Government department in which extensive reductions are practicable is that of Education. This, like the Postal and Railway Departments, gives to the public a great deal that the public is very well pleased to have, but a great deal that the public also cannot properly afford to pay for. The cost of State education of all classes is indeed very far in excess of the Colony’s legitimate means of payment. These means have hitherto been largely ; supplemented by illegitimate means — borrowing. And, as has before been truly pointed out by ourselves and others, seeing that our education system is dependent upon a due supply of school buildings, and as these have been built with borrowed money and could not have been erected in such numbers or on so costly a scale save with borrowed money, it plainly follows chat hitherto our boasted education system has rested on English loans as its basis, upon money provided, not by the New Zealand colonists, but by the Englishcapitalist lenders. It has been wisely decided by the present Government that this unsound method is to cease forthwith, but the interest on the past enormous outlay upon palatial schoolr buildings—especially in Canterbury and Otago —will long remain an appreciable item in the heavy burden borne by the New Zealand taxpayer. The heavy current expenses of the Education* Department will, however, certainly not be lessened by the inclusion of the cost of erecting schoolbuildings, hitherto provided out . of loan, but of course will be pro tanto increased. Yet these Expenses are already excessive, and with this addition of £60,000 per annum will press more severely than ever. Can they not be reduced ? There is no question at all that thej ewrel ? as can

those of the Postal and Railway Departments —if only adverse political influence would let the matter alone.

It has long been the opinion of many who are cordial admirers and supporters of our national education system that a vast saving could be effected without appreciable deterioration of efficiency by lopping off something at both ends. That is to say, by deierminiug that free State education shall begin at the age of 7 years and eud at the fourth standard. The Government took up the former side of the proposed reduction, though in a very half-hearted way, last session, and suggested the raising of the minimum school age to six years, but readily abandoned the suggestion ou a mild appearance of opposition manifesting itself. They have brought the suggestion forward in a still more halfhearted way—we might say in a half-quarter-hearted way—this year, by hinting with bated breath and whispering humbleness that another L 25,000 could bo saved if only Parliament would consent to raise the school age to six years ; but it was offered with such trembling timidity as to impress upon everybody the idea that at the'first faintest hint of objection Ministers would burst out with breathless eagerness “ O, never mind ! Pray don’t trouble yourselves 1 We didn’t really mean it! It was only our fun ! Just a matter of form, your know ! Please say no more about it! ” If that is not what Ministers really meant to convey by their manner of. re-proposing the plan, it is a pity they did not adopt a slightly more decisive tone. Most certainly that is the impression they have so far produced. The objections taken to the course are mainly that it would shut up some of the smaller country schools, whose average is largely made up of these under-age babies ; and that it is a great convenience to the working class to have their babies taken care of in a public nursery paid fo/ by the general taxpayer. But it seems to us that these difficulties could be overcome bv a partial compromise. Some concession could be made where necessary and justifiable in the eases of remote countrv schools, and other means might "be found of giving some State aid, if on a reduced scale. So, too, with the public nurseries (called “ Infant Schools ,: ) in the large towns. These could bo carried on far more cheaply and just as efficiently by enlisting the aid of private or semiprivate organisation, as has been conclusively proved in this very city by the St.' Paul’s parishioners. But this must h 9 the alternative, for, as we pointed out the other week, infant schools are a necessity ; they compass much good. The « top-lopping ’* half of the main edu cational retrenchment scheme —the closing of free education at the Fourth Standard, and the imposition of a fee for the higher Standards —has not yet been touched upon by the Government, and no disposition is evinced to touch it at all. No good cause is shown for this abstention. No valid reason is given for refusing to charge a fee in the Fifth° and Sixth Standards while fees are charged for High School instruction. If education ought to be free above the Fourth -Standard, why stop short at the Sixth? Why not afford a free Highrschor.l and University training ? Why not, indeed, teach every youth and maiden -a trade or j profession gratuitously, and maintain them until they are perfect? For ourselves —we need hardly say, as we have more than once urged the point — we are in favour of a small school fee being charged in all eases where the parents can afford to pay it, and we have no sympathy at all with the false sentiment which fancies that this would create a humiliating distinction between the paying and the non-pay-ing pupils. This may suggest itself to the snobbish minds that appraise a man’s value by his (real or apparent) worldly possessions, but it is assuredly uot a sentiment that ought to be inculcated in our State Bchool system, or even supposed to exist Zb all. For the Government to be admittedly influenced in its course of policy by the absurd fear that a child.-sn.ob may gneer at his or her fellow-pupil because the latter’s parents pay no echool fees, is quite too ridiculous * And it ia mischievous as well,"by officially recognising a possible snobbery which ought rather to be ignored cr sternly discountenanced than encouraged. Beside, why need the children kuow auythirg at all about it 1 It is not their business, and if their parents me fools enough to consult them kIs»» d vtters with which at their J ■ ■ ■ e they ought to, have nothing in «i r , > is really not incum-

bent on the State to provide against the consequences of such stupid parental indiscretion. The case against school-fees has in fact not a log to stand upon, and when it is recollected that the very persons who are supposed to be getting “free” education for their children are in reality paying com pulsorily for it by an addition to the cost of everything they ear or drink or wear or use, the absurdity of keeping up the present form —the mere pretence of the “ free” principle—is selfevident.

Yet another mode of educational retrenchment consists in the abolition of Education Boards, and we are very glad to see that this is to be proposed by the Minister for Education. We fully recognise the good work which these Boards have performed in the past, and the earnestness and ability with which their members have laboured in a public cause. Nevertheless the plan has proved a very expensive one—and m some respects distinctly inefficient. For instance, it is an obvious midtake to place tho Inspectors under the respective Boards and to attach them exclusively to thenown district. They ought to be colonial officers, and should inspect the various districts in turn, so that if possible the same inspector should never take the same district two years in succession. Each school inspection ought to rest on its own merits, and should not be a mere matter of comparison, otherwise there are grave temptations to favouritism and injustice, and special facilities for them. An inspector is human,, and therefore is naturally tempted to make good any hasty or unfounded opinion ho may once have formed and expressed regarding a school or its master. By arranging that the inspection shall be performed by different persons each successive year, this possibi 1 itv would be avoided. . And not only should the inspectors be the officers of a central depart ment, but so also should the masters be, and a uniform scale of salary and allowance should be adopted. At present the anomalies and inequalities in the rates of salary are glaring. In the Wellington district, for instance, the highest salary is £370. In Auckland there are several salaries of £4OO and upward. Iu Hawlces Bay the salaries run as high as £4-73. In Grey they go to £400; iu Taranaki they do not exceed £258 ; iu Wanganui L 349 ; in Nelson £300; in Westland £320. In North Canterbury they rise to £433, and even £453 ; In South Canterbury £340 is the highest, and in Southland £344. In Otago there are no fewer than eight higher than £4OO and one as high as £4BO. Now, why should there be these wide differences iu the salaries paid for similar Government work ? It cannot be pretended that the salaries are based upon seniority or standing, for a comparison at once disproves that. Nor can it be argued that the salaries are regulated upon a basiß of attendance, for we notice that while an attendance of 545 entitles a Wellington head master to receive £370, an attendance of 28G entitles an Otago master to £412. So also a Canterbury master with an attendance of 1089 is paid £3S3, but an Otago master with an attendance of 676 receives £4BO. We might multiply such instances did our space permit. Now we do not say that tho highest of these salaries is too hi"h for the work done, but we do say ilufe \v}jen such rigorous retrenchment is compulsory in all directions, there is bo reason why one master should receive £IOO to £l5O more than is deemed ample remuneration to another for similar work, and such inequalities are distinctly unfair. They are due simply to the existence of so many independent Boards, and the soouer these are swept away with all their multifarious expenses, and one uuiform system of administration and scale of pay adopted for the whole Colony, the better and more economically will our State education be managed. There will never be a more favourable opportunity than the preseut for Parliament to take the whole matter resolutely in hand. We trust that the opportunity will not be lost.

§9me people seem still to misunderstand the position of the Civil Servants with reference to the effect of retrenchment upon their retiring allowances. We pointed bqt recently that a clause in last year’s Appropriation Act specially provides against the retiring 3Jloyyanc.es being prejudiced by’ reduction of salaries for retrenchment purposes. To this it is rejoined that the Appropriation Act only remains in force for one session, and it is argued that, therefore, there is no provision for the future, But it seems to b©

forgotten' that provision was only required for the interval pending the passing of the new Civil Service Act, which, as everybody knows, will necessarily deal with that point as well as with all other matters connected with the reorganisation of the Service.

Our cable messages this week announce the re-election of Stephen Groves Cleveland, President of the United States, to a further official,, term. President Cleveland has proved himself the ablest chief the Americans have had for many years past.

Wn are glad to see that Mr D. T. Stuart moved a resolution in the Chamber of Commerce last Friday in favour of legislation making the punishment of the lash applicable to persons guilty of the heinous and most dangerous crime of arson. We entirely agree with the views he expressed and only regret that they were not endorsed by the Chamber.

A case of great interest to fishermen was decided last Friday afternoon in the Resident Magistrate’s Court. It may be remembered that the police brought an action last month against a man named Wiseman for setting a net across the Hutt River close to the Pipe Bridge. Constables Harnett and Lee found the net set about 11 o’clock at night, and after watching beside it all night, cleverly cauglit Wiseman red-handed, between two and three o’clock in the morning, hauling the net. The action was brought by the police at the instigation of the Acclimatisation Society under the provisions of the Fisheries Conservation Act, 1884, and the Resident Magistrate allowed the case to be adjourned to permit the question of ownership of the water to be argued. After hearing the arguments of Mr Gray, solicitor for the Wellington Acclimatisation Society, on behalf of the prosecution, and Mr Slcerrett for the defendant, his Worship held that it had not been proved that the waters in which the net was set were private waters, and gave judgment against the defendant, inflicting a fine of L 3 and costs. In giving judgment his Worship stated that in future he would be disposed to exercise the discretionary powers vested in him with severity in cases of this kind, as he recognised that the introduction and preservation of salmon and trout in New Zealand waters was a matter that directly concerned the welfare of the community. He is quite right. Large sums of money have been expended and infinite pains taken in stocking our rivers and estuaries, and it is not to be tolerated that a few men should for their own gain be allowed to destroy the work of years by blocking the free passage between river and sea with nets, in defiance of regulations to the contrary.. We commend this case to the attention of fishers in the Wellington Harbour. It is well known that- the mouth of the Hutt -River is a favorite breeding place for flounders and other fish, and it would be distinctly in the interest of the Wellington fish supply if the regulations which provide for the preservation of this estuary, including a quarter of a mile on each side of the actual mouth of the river, were strictly enforced.

While we cordially appreciate the kindly consideration for shop employes which has impelled Mr Joyce to bring forward his Bill for rendering early closing .compulsory, we fear his measure is impracticable in its present shape. Some very cogent arguments were brought against it at the Chamber of Commerce meeting last Friday, and it is not easy to see how it could be made workable without causing extreme inconvenience to the public, particularly to the working class. If all shops closed at 6 p.m. when could men who did not leave oft’ work until 5 or later, do their necessary shopping? In many cases they would not reach their homes after their day’s labour before the hour when the shops would be closed. Again, if every shop were shut at 6 when would the persons engaged in those shops up to the hour of closing be able to make their own purchases at shops other than those in -which they were employed ? It seems to us that Mr Joyce, with the best intentions, has tried to do too much, and that what he should rather aim at is to prevent excessive hours of labour being extorted from employes.

The increased tea duty will fall with undue heaviness on the consumers of cheap tea. The price of tea varies so much that the best sorts are worth five or six times as much as the inferior kinds ; yet all are taxed alike. This involves considerable inequality in the incidence of the tax, which falls most severely on those who can least afford to pay it. It would be much fairer to have a graduated tax, either on the ad valorem principle, or ranging from Id or 2d per lb for the cheapest classes to 9d or lOd for tlie best classes of tea. It is asserted that in this way a materially increased revenue could be obtained with much less strain upon the consumers of tea.

The arrangement come to with regard to tlie Corporation leases appears to be a very just and satisfactory one, and we hope that the Bill giving effect to. it; will have a safe career through Parliament. Th@ effect will be to place the leaseholders ip a far better and sounder and more satisfactory position than they occupied before, to benefit the municipal finances generally, and to prove of advantage to the city by facilitating and en-

couraging the erection of a better and more durable class of buildings.

With regard to the intended removal of Mr E. D. Butts, the Wellington Chief Postmaster, to another office, some misconception appears to exist on tlie subject. It is . not “Mr Alexander Barr whom Mr Butts will succeed in Dunedin, but Mr Archibald Barr, a very old and well-known public servant, who retires on his pension. Then again, according to the Estimates, Mr Butts will not lose LSO but will gain LSO in salary by the transfer. He was l-eceiving LSOO in Wellington ; the Dunedin salary is set down at L 550. Indeed, as the salary attached to tlie Wellington Chief Postmaster3liip is set down at L 450 for this year, lie will apparently gain LIOO by the re-arrangement as compared with what he would have had had lie remained iu Wellington. This, of course, is simply going by the Estimates. We congratulate Mr Butts on liis promotion. He is a most able and valuable officer, and deservedly popular. Mr Butts formerly held for many years the same position at Invercargill, but was promoted to Wellington 14 or 15 years ago. His departure from Wellington will be much regretted. As we mentioned yesterday,.Mr Hoggard, Mr Butts’ second in command, will take charge of the Wellington office, so the Postmaster’s salary will be virtually saved.

The news of the s.s. Hawea’s untoward fate will be received with general regret, for there was no more favourite steamer among those which trade exclusively on tlie New Zealand coast. The disaster is a poor testimonial to the safety of the approach to the artificial harbour partially constructed at New Plymouth at such heavy cost. It is something to be thankful for, however,-that no human lives were sacrificed. .

An apt instance of the extent to which slipshod legislation may seriously affect the welfare of individuals was afforded by a point raised and argued in the Court of Appeal on Friday last. Mr McLean, of Hawera, had recovered L 350 damages against Mr Iredale, cf the'same town, in a divorce suit, and, having been refused a new trial/appealed to the Court of Appeal against tlie refusal. When the appeal was called on Mr Samuel, as counsel for the respondent, raised the preliminary objection that the rules of the Court of AjSpeal had not been complied with. He pointed out that although the Divorce Act, 1867, permitted .an appeal to the Court of Appeal within three months after tliedecision appealed against, and the rules of 1867 required no security for costs to be given, yet by the Court of Appeal Act, 1882, appeals against interlocutory orders must be brought within thirty days, and other appeals might be brought within one year, and if security was not given the proceedings were to be treated as abandoned. Mr Samuel contended that as there was no special Divorce Court in New Zealand, the Court of Appeal Act impliedly repealed all provisions for appeals in the Divorce Act and Rules, and as no security had been given by the appellant, he moved that the appeal be struck out. Mr Bell, counsel for appellant, submitted that neither the Court of Appeal Act, 1882, nor the Supreme Court Act, 1882, applied to divorce procedure. Mr Justice Williams remarked that it was originally intended to include Divorce Rules in the Supreme Court Code, which had been drafted so as to include them, but that afterward all reference to divorce jurisdiction was struck out, except only a provision as to costs of divorce suits, which was overlooked. The Court, consisting of the Chief Justice, Mr J ustice Williams, and Mr Justice Ward, overruled the objection, and pointed out the danger of applying a general Act to special procedure. It was pointed out during the argument that if it were held that tho Divorce Act was so affected by the Court of Appeal Act as to extend the time for appeals to one year, the effect would be to render illegal the marriages of all persons who had been divorced since 1882 and remarried within a year after the divorce. The appeal was afterward argued, on its merits and dismissed with costs. We understand that Mr Samuel will add a new clause to his Divorce Bill to remove all doubt on the question and provide that the ordinary provisions for appeals from the Supreme Court shall not extend to proceedings in the Divorce jurisdiction of the Court.