Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume LIV, Issue 9840, 22 February 1893, Page 2

The Hon Mr Shrinjski is just as much mistaken in saying that Mr Ballancp has lost bis temper as he is in thinking that the Premier has any objection to his coreligionists; The question between them |s withih.toe range of practical

politics, because it turns oub that the repoit about the emigration cn mtusat ° c Russian Jews has no foundation. That is established on the authority of the Chief Rabbi in London. The tact ought to go a long way to show Mr Shrimski that he has jumped hastily to a wrong conclusion. If these unfortunate people were in every way fitted for independent colonial life, their wealthy co religionists would no have hesitated for a moment to spend millions upon their emigration to the British colonies. That they have not done so is proof that they regard them as unfit for independent colonial life ; that they consider a policy of wholesale emigration would reduce these people to greater misery and provide the colonies with an insoluble difficulty. They have, in a word, lead the signs of the subject, and they understand them. If they were to organise a scheme of emigration with guarantees for the maintenance of the people and their gradual, perhaps speedy, conversion into prosperous producers, and if they were to ask for land for the purpose of carrying this scheme into execution, they might make out a case for co operation to that extent. But that has not b-en done. As a matter of fact, nothing has been done. The report, which turns oub to be false, was of a wholesale emigration of paupers to be thrown destitute on our shores to shift for themselves as beat they might To countenance a calamity cf that kind would be disastrous. Such a thing would be resisted, no matter what the religion or nationality of the proposed emigrants. In point of fa?t it has been resisted in the case of proposed English emigrants already. A project for State-aided emigration to the colonies was hotly taken up some years ago in London by leading philanthropists. It even became a main plank in 'he platform of some eminent social ro formers. It failed because the Colonial Governments objected to the ‘dumping’ of paupers into their respective countries. They asked for guarantees that the State-aided emigrants would not be burdens on the country of th»-ir adoption ; and thereupon the project died a natural death. What was thought of in the case of the Russian Jews was actually done in the case of English paupers, who but for that action might now be swarming in every British colony. Mr Shrimski* has our respect for the warmth of heart and generosity he has shown in this matter. But for his judgment as a controversialist and his accuracy as a student of contemporary history, that is another thing.

It is said that if the Racing Ciub had taken our advice, founded on a wellremembered precedent, and asked the consent of all concerned to the reception of the late nominations, they would have got that consent. If that is so, it is extraordinary that anybody should have entered a protest on the ground of the breach of rule. About the question at issue, it is impossible to resist the conclusion of Mr Justice Richmond. His very lucid and admirable judgment is absolutely conclusive. The place and date of nomination were settled by the advertisement, virtually ; and the subsequent action of the stewards is not in any of the three categories provided by tho rules. The Racing Club have found that the rules, which were intended to cover every possible contingency, are, through the liability nf all things human to error, not as perfect as they were thought to be. They have had the advantage of a judicial decision, which has shown them that the logical perfection of their rules makes them imperfect so far as their intended scope is concerned. They can protect themselves in future by the simple expedient of making the Post Office the place of nomination, and so prevent recourse to imperfect rules for righting Post Office blunders. That the stewards behaved with perfect fairness, and that no one was injured by their action, admits of no doubt, and has been handsomely declared by the Judge. He has also pronounced iuferentially that the protest was scarcely sportsmanlike. It is not sportsmanlike to take advantage of a legal technic lity for the purpose of converting the loser of a race into a winner. 1 Wrong in law, right in justice and sport’—that is what the verdic' amounts to. It is a verdict of which any Racing Club has a right to be proud. The club pays LI9O with costs and looks pleasant. The totaliaator side of the question, of course, does nob go with the verdict. There is a legal decision to the effect that totalisator bets are not recoverable in a court of law.