THE New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. THURSDAY, MAY 28, 1896. ALTOGETHER A FAMILY AFFAIR.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1265, 28 May 1896, Page 22

THE New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. THURSDAY, MAY 28, 1896. ALTOGETHER A FAMILY AFFAIR.

The article which avo publish this week page 16 lays bare the skeleton in the Salvation Army closet. The one thing that stands out distinctly is that it is all very largely a family affair of the Booths. Nor can “Gen.” Booth longer look for respect either on the ground of religion, discretion or good tasto. The letters themselves show that ho has nono of the former, and their publication shows that he has none of the latter. But their publication will serve a good purpose, namely—to convince the public what a private family aflair of the Booths is all 'this Salvation Army. We have the “ Army” very largely among us, and hence the subject is of live interest to us, and local in its application. Let us road the letters carefully so that we may ho able to get at the inward spirit that rules the whole organisation. Note the dreadful filial impiety as depicted by Booth, sen. against Booth jun. in the matter of rebellion against the old man s despotic rule. But it will also bo noted that the “General” offers no discussion, no reason ; he merely demands obedience because ho is the father, and declares that all who do not blindly obey him are wicked. Not only does the “ General ” keep his subordinate management in the hands of his own children, lmt ho denounces even them as wicked and turns them out if they question his despotic authority. This is not the kind of authority that should ho permitted to rule any organisation, especially when it is exercised by the stubborn head of a fanatical religious movement organised as a military association. It would appear that the troubles in the United States are the beginning of the breaking up of the “ Army,” which is certainly one of the most peculiar productions of the century in its line. Light has been thrown upon it, and we see it in its right character—the family concern and speculation of “General ” Booth.

THE AUXILIARY SQUADRON. There is jealousy between Melbourne and Sydney on the subject, which will probably lie intensified by the increased expenditure announced by tho Mother Country. The fact that this AGO,OOO has been carefully saved by the Mother Country for some years is, by the way, a breach of agreement to be kept in mind, oven if wo are thankful that the British Government has at last condescended |to come to its senses with respect to tho Auxiliary Squadron. Tho jealousy iu Melbourne is due solely to the fact that the ships so very seldom cast anchor in Port Phillip. From the first tho Aye has boon tho mouthpiece of this feeling. In the beginning the great Radical—perhaps it would be more correct to say whilom Radical—journal of Victoria said that the ships would not be soon in Melbourne at any other than Melbourne Cup time. Then it said that tho subsidy paid by Victoria got- nothing iu return ; now it is battering along tho same lino. Tho Sydney newspapers treat these protests with a contempt largely reinforced by tho knowledge of the benefit derived by Sydney from the expenditure of so much public money. Their arguments are many, but they are not diverse, for summed up they come to one thing; viz., that tho Admiral whose business it is to maiKßUvre his ships knows his business best, and that therefore no one else has any right to interfere ; that interference, in fact', is an impertinence, it is not an interesting quarrel as between those two colonies. In New Zealand tho Colony’s interest has been better managed. It is idle, of course, to pretend that in time of war the Admiral in command of the station would have to consider the wishes of any contributory colonies, and it would, we trust, he equally out of the question to suppose that any colony could he so foolish as to place the interest of the local purveyors of coal and provisions before the general interest as affected by tlm course of the campaign. In war, it is obvious, the Admiral must he left Lo take any course lie may think proper. For instance, if he could, by con- j centrating his ships on a distant point, say i the Island of Reunion, or the port of Tama- j tave, utterly paralyse and perhaps totally I destroy an enemy’s Heel, no colonist could i Had any fault if he denuded these coasts ot ; ships and destroyed the enemy at his con- • centrating point. In war the course of those who command the fleet must he Hoe. That principle was acknowledged by tho Now Zealand Government tho StoiitYogel Government —which lirst got I’arliamentary sanction for the subsidy to tho Auxiliary Squadron, and arranged with the Imperial Government the terms of its employment. Butin peace time tho pecuniary interest of the question of the squadron .is by no means msignilicant. Without being u.uamount, it has sufficient importance to entitle it to full consideration. It is a mero matter of money. A colony which subscribes money to the up-keep ot a squadron of ships is entitled, so long as otlior reasons do not keep tho ships away elsewhere, to a share of the expenditure ot the ships. Each colony has a right to expect that a just portion of its own expenditure shall bo returned to it through the providers of coal and other necessaries fot the service of tho ships. Ihat is no more than fair, and recognition of tho right by New South Wales and by tho Admiralty is an act of courtesy rightfully expected at their hands. Now Zealand, fortunately,

did not leave this important question to tho tender mercies of the Admiralty. The Stout-Vogel Government, having admitted the first rule about the perfect freedom of the Admiral iu wai, secured that in peace a proportion of the vessels for which wo pay must bo stationed in New Zealand waters. That stipulation was intended to secure tho presence of tho ships of the Auxiliary Squadron. Frequently wo have other ships, but it is an immaterial point, because wo got what wo chiefly stipulated for, viz., a return ot a moiety of our own money. Tho Victorian Government was not so prudent, and the newspapers are consequently grumbling. That should be a lesson to all who deal with Downing street to trust to something better than mere goodwill. MUNICIPAL FIRE INSURANCE. Mr St. Vincent Welch, the president of tho Insurance Institute of New South Wales, referred to tho proposal for establishing a State Fire Insurance Department in a manner which is eulogistically referred to by the local papers as caustic. Now,caustic criticism is very generally cheap criticism, and Air St. Vincent Welch’s is not an exception to the rule, llis line was lordly and simple, and, wo may add, shallow. Ist, the proportion of incendiary fires everywhere now is one to every two fires that occur ; 2nd, that proportion will under the State largely increase; 3rd, it is awful tyranny to compel everybody to insure. The last is a charming touch which implies that the tyranny of State Socialism is going to compel more than 50 per cent, of the householders of these not by any means idyllicallv innocent countries to become habitual traffickers in arson. As to tho first point, we will leave this caustic gentleman to prove his assertion in some way; for at present it is one of those general statements which may represent the condition of tho speaker’s liver very much more accurately than it can be said to gauge any facts. But it wo grant him, on his first, all that his somewhat too bilious assertion requires, the cause of his second is thereby by no means improved. Why should the chango from private to State control lead to a decrease of care and penetration on tho part of those who control the details of lire insurance? All the reasons iu tho case point the other way. In tho first place tho laxity and blindness produced by great competition for business would lie cured by the removal of the competition; secondly, the best demont, say in proportion one-tenth, of tho combined staffs which eat up the profits and keep up the rates would be retained, and tho ineffective perfunctory balance dispersed; thirdly, the tyranny of compulsory insurance is very well until you realise tho tyranny of the man who will not insure. Hu declares that ho may see his way to a profit by not insuring, because the ratio of burning to non-burning is such that one completely disastrous tiro will cost him less than the average number of yearly premiums. Now, he forgets (I) that the success of his paper calculation is due to the lowering of rates caused by the State Socialism of which he is complaining, and (2) that when ho has his one big burn he will probably cause many otlior burns—for, being a logical person, ho will not have any lire appliances or precautions of any kind —which other burns will have to be paid for by the State. Is it right that one man should make a selfish calculation to tho public disadvantage ? If his property were at the top of, say, (Mount Olympus he would bo right. But as it is in tho midst of a populous and inflammable neighbourhood, where his burning will be the burning of others, who may have suffered much alrea ly, ho must bo dealt with accordingly. Moreover, lot us not forget that the foundation of tho whole of this “ caustic” criticism in three parts is the fearfully largo proportion of incendiary fires. Make it everybody’s interest to put down arson, and arson will at once lose ground and hide its diminished head. Tho only way to do that is to make oveiybody subscribe to the insurance fund. The third proposition, therefore, of the caustic critic demolishes his first, and liis second has no understanding of its own, and no capacity for appealing to the understanding of others. Wo conclude by returning to tho original proposition that caustic criticism is often, and in this case, only another name for cheap criticism.