NOTE AND COMMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXIX, Issue 3777, 27 June 1899, Page 5

NOTE AND COMMENT.

“It has never been the intention of the Government to substitute Wellington for Auckland as the port of call for the San Francisco Jnail steamers 1 .” With this politic yet perfectly true-and straightforward statement the Premier disposes of the impassioned appeal of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce to save the Queen of the North from the wicked designs of Wellington against her “ewe lamb” ; and a. complimentary reference to the prosperity of Auckland closes, let us nope, the reign of panic in the Northern city in connection with this subject. All that Wellington and other cities have asked is fair consideration when the question of inaugurating a fortnightly service comes up ; and the Government has not yet said that such consideration will be denied to three-fourths of the colony. The unpatriotic action of the Aucklanders in appealing to Sydney for help must tell against the claims of the “phalanx” when the matter comes before Parliament.

The points raised in the concluding paragraph of the letter from the Hon W. P. Reeves on the subject of the action taken in London by the debenture-hold-ers of the Midland Railway are fitted to suggest that it is desirable to have an Imperial law of contempt of Court, which should operate to prevent comment in. England upon colonial cases that form the subject of appeal to the Privy Council. It would seem that the solicitors of the Midland- Railway debenture-hold-ers have been publishing letters and circulars calculated to prejudice the case of the New Zealand Government in the matter of the debenture-holders’ claims, and they have in addition invoked the Stock Exchange, to side with them in the dispute. This procedure is on the face of it improper, quite apart from its political bearing. As Mr Reeves justly reminds the London public, the New Zealand Law Courts are Courts of the Empire ; and we think it ought to follow that cases carried from them on appeal to the Privy Council should be removed from public comment.

Mr Haselden’s caution regarding the impolicy of bringing numerous cases against parents for failing to send their children regularly to school is a wise one. The danger, to our way of thinking, is not so much that the education system will thereby become unpopular, as it is that a sense of injustice will be engendered in the minds of those prosecuted. It is perfectly well known that there is not accommodation in some of the city schools for the children living within a reasonable distance of them; and until the Board of Education discharges its duty, it is vain to blame the Truant Officer or to prosecute parents on account of some children not being in regular attendance. In general, it should be the policy of the board, after it has provided sufficient accommodation, to discourage prosecution until every other means had been tried and failed. The community must, of course, insist upon all children being educated, for without the compulsory clause, a State education system cannot justify its existence.

That ghastly spectre known as “ NoConfidence Motion ” has already begun to walk the Parliamentary boards. The Opposition, as we indicated in Saturday’s issue, are contemplating the moving of a resolution traversing the declared policy of the Government with regard to inq ait v into the methods that have of late years prevailed in connection with the granting of marine certificates of competency. It is to be hoped that, before embarking

on this course, the Opposition leaders will calculate the chances of carrying such a motion, and if they find that they have no hope of success, will refrain from wasting the country’s time and money in a pointless and futile debate. Former experience of no-confidence motions should have taught them that they gain nothing by forcing a division that only discloses the weakness of their forces. If they liave no more decent pretext than a demand for a Parliamentary inquiry into a matter which Ministers have properly referred to a Royal Commission, they would do well to refrain from raising in the House the question of the “marine scandal.” In another aspect of the matter, it would be well for the Opposition to play this—their hea” : e.r. “trump card” —early in the session, because with that question out’ of the way. some good legislative work may be afterwards done.

It would appear as though some of the City Councillors were bent on seeing how much strain they can put upon the City Engineer without breaking him down altogether. A favourite method of disposing of a momentarily difficult question is to “refer it to the Engineer for a report,” and the result is that Air Rounthwaite is obliged to place report after report on the table, often having reference to comparatively trivial matters, but the compilation of the details of which has probably occupied much valuable time. It frequently happens, too, that statements and estimates which have taken hours of painful and exact preparation, are thrown on one side with almost contemptuous indifference; or, as happened last night, the Councillors who might have been expected to have been interested in the contents of the reports, had to confess, after moving resolutions, which were prima facie ridiculous, that they had given the reports no adequate consideration. This following of a bad Parliamentary precedent in such matters is not creditable to Councillors and is most unjust to the Engineer.