The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY) WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1880.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 6048, 18 August 1880, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY) WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1880.

The attack on the Railway Commission the other night by Mr. Pyke and his extemporised party, was just one of those unfair and indecorous proceedings which always hurt the assailants much more than the assailed. In saying this we do not imply even that the Commission was infallible, and not open to mistakes, but wo do say that the Commission had been appointed not by the House, but by the Governor ; and it was for the Governor, and not for the Houses to call them to account if they had exceeded or neglected their duty. Most of them were ; riot members of the House, and could not with any show of reason be held, responsible to the House. The strongest argument of all in their favor, .however, was that they had undertaken an extremely burdensome ; and . thankless task, solely iii the public interests, and had discharged it fearlessly and impartially according to their honest convictions. Members had a perfect right to call in question the action of the Government in appointing the Commission at all. They had a perfect right to criticise the selection of Commissioners. They had a perfect right to blame the Government, for adopting or rejecting, as the case might be, the recommendations contained in the report. But they manifestly had ho right to censure the Commissioners directly for anything that they had deemed it their duty to do under the Governor’s Commission. Even if Mr. Fyke's motipn had been a proper one iu principle, moreover, it was obviously so injudicious as to be sure to

defeat itself. His arguceu was that the Commissioners were iofc;ompetent to pass an independent judgment upon the various projecte lines of railway, and iu order to sstain that contention he invited th House to revise the decision arrived at by the Commissioner. What was the result? Each member who supported the motionthrew off even the pretence of idependent judgment, and devoted himslf undisguisedly to the advocacy of tho interests of his own distret. They did the very thing which th Commission had been appointed esressly to avoid, and thus furnilied the strongest possible justificatin for the appointment of the Commision, and the most convincing evidece of the value of their report. Thy showed unmistakeably that the deciion of the railways question by the Hase meant nothing but a scramble, auc the very constitution of the party wb opposed the Commission sufficed t demonstrate the necessity for refering that question to a tribunal abstreted from political influences. The frther the " debate progressed the painer all this became, and Ion; before it had talked itself out, Mr. Pyke and his friends had cmclusively disproved the very thing 'hich they had set out to prove. Itcannot be overlooked either that, wefk as they were, the strength they hd was not all their own. They were aided by those who, whilst enterkining no animus against the Commision, were yet willing enough to sacrifice them in order to strike a blow at tbi Government. In spite of that conbination, however, the House, by a Majority of two to one, declined to ensure the Commission, and thus afforled them a triumph such as they coull not have gained by any other array of circumstances. We only wondei that Mr. Pyke, with his natural ihrewdness and long experience of ,tle bye-ways of politics, failed to foresee that such result was inevitable.

When we commented, in a foimer issue, upon the enquiry into Press telegram matters held by the Press Telegrams Committee, we promised to revirt to the subject for the purpose of geltinj justice done to the United Press Association relative to the special wire they rent from the Government. It was attempted to be shown that the special wire was a source of serious loss to the department, and, with his usual and marked antagonism to the Press, the Commissioner of Telejraphs (Dr. Lemon) went so far as to state that tho loss was £7OO a year. We gave question and answer for this, as printed in the report of the committee’s proceedings. Dr. Lemon was under examination, and thus the Hon. Mr. Hall : “But with regard to the special wire, can you state to the committee generally what are the results to the Government? What do they get for it?” Answer: “They receive £2OOO a year for the special wire.” Question ; “ And what does it cost tho Government, excluding the interest on the cost of the line i ” Answer ; “ Well, 1 think we stand to lose about £6OO a year.” Question; “How do you make that out ? What do the Government expenses include ? ” Answer : “ Wages principally. I daresay the loss will be £7OO a year ; and it may be more.” Question: “That is without charge of interest on the capital ? ” Answer : “Quite so.” Qu-'tion: “Do you include anything for the maintenance of the line?” Answer: “No.” Question: “ The labpr and aof-.-vl o-epenses working the line only?” “Yes.” -Thm io emphatic evidence, and ought to have been substantiated by anything the Commissioner said, or advanced afterwards. The contrary, however, was the case, for' in a tabulated statement of figures submitted by Dr. Lemon in appendix C of the report the total expense of working the special wire is set down at £2361, or only £361 in excess of the rent paid by the Press Association. But this is only half the truth. The doctor, when under examination, positively declared that neither interest nor cost 1 of - maintenance was included in his estimate of loss, £7OO ; that labor and actual expenses only made up the I, s. But in his tabulated statement of figures we find £364, set down for r.i I - 'Co and £268 for interest, and .hu c .l ading these items, there would be a profit of £632 on the* special wire. A glaring discrepancy truly, and not to be reconciled with the doctor’s glib evidence to the committee. The truth is Dr. Lemon is still in the confined groove he has so long occupied with reference to telegraph matters. Profit to his particular department, and not public convenience, iswhathe has studied, and it seems to us is the only idea he is capable of enterin' '•■'». And the Press is his beie noir —something, in fact, specially sent to annoy him, and so he harps upon the special wire, is laborious in his efforts to saddle it with a loss to the country, and with the canning of a little mind carefully shuffles out of sight the profits made other ways out of the Press by the Telegraph Department: We maintain that the Commissioner of Telegraphs is incapable of grasping the position, and we as strongly insist.that tho country will gain immensely in the long run by conceding whatever in reason may be granted to the Press in the way of telegraphic convenience. .

Mr. SHAWf Ei.M., assuredly exceeded the limits of expediency and good sense yesterday, in inflicting a sentence of two months’ imprisonment with hard:labbr on the defendant in the case Jordan v. Willis. The- offence • complained of - was an assault, anrl apparently not of a, very severe nature.' The provocation, as shown by tho evidence, was sufficiently exasperating to excite more than momentary anger in the mind of the accused. The truth or otherwise of the allegations contained in the letter which aroused the defendant’s ire, has no bearing upon the present aspect of the question—tho assault was not denied. Tho mistake lies in the disparity of tho sentence, cbmpared with' the wrong inflicted', Virtually it moans absolute ruin to tire transgressor. He is sentenced to lose his means of subsistence, to be cast down from-tho social position he has occupied, and to hord with criminals, because in a moment’s passion he committed an assault upon one, who, for aught shown to the contrary in the evidence, was,perfectly able do defend himself i Under‘ similar'circumstances the ordinary punishment is a monetary fine and tho binding over of tho offender to keep thepeaco for aoertainterm. In this instance no option of fine is permitted, a heavy sentence is inflicted,, and the impression prevails th.it,such sentence is unduly severe.., * In the opinion 'the Magistrate the offence was one of extreme gravity, taking irito'accouht the position and training of the defendant, but lie admits no extenuating circumstance in the nature of tho aggravation causing tho offence.. We do not desire to uphold the defendant, or any man, in wrong doing, or raise captions cavilling at decisions of the. Court ; wo'merely give expression to public opinion when we say that the sentence is looked upon as excessively harsh. The Magistrate appears, for the moment, to have lost his accustomed judicial serenity, and to have considered himself the arbiter not only in tho charge of assault but in the, as yet, unproven charges against the moral character of tho defendant, out of which the assault iiroso. What right had the Magistrate to call upon tho accused to answer or explain away charges made in a letter addressed to tho Chairman of the Education Board?

Surely lie has had enough experience on the Bench to mark the limit where necessary magisterial enquiry ends and inquisitorial obtrusiveness begins—a limit which, in this instance, he appears to have overstepped.