OPEN COLUMN.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4366, 25 May 1901, Page 3

OPEN COLUMN.

THE JURY SYSTEM AND ELECTIVE JUDGES. . Writing from New Plymouth, “A Believer in Elected Judges" says:—lt has been a practice ot the Judges for some time past to keep finding fault with the jury system, displaying thereby a very evident anxiety to have the system abolished and themselves appointed to 'be solo arbiters in all criminal matters. In view of this evident inclination of the Judges it behoves the people of New Zealand, especially the male portion, to be on their, guard, and prevent any legislative tinkering with the jury system which is one of our safeguards of liberty. The judges, who have, in my opinion, too much power already, are anxious to make their position almost akin to that of a despotic ruler. It really looks nke a case of “lust for power.” There are many people in this favoured land who think that the time has arrived when Judgeships should be open for competition by election, and they have all the best of the case in an argument on the question. If wo elect men to make our laws, why in the name of common sense can’t we elect men to administer them? The administration of the law is not such a hard matter as some people would have us believe it is. The Premier is now committed to a policy of progression, and in this matter of the Judges it is to be heped that the Premier will not only' prevent the giving of more power-to them, but will give the question of elective .judges reasonable consideration. In our democratic policy we cannot now retrograde, and the whole question of elective public servants must necessarily come up for publtc review at no distant dale. The democracy _ will rule. Toe old ■ gag'' uuuut the elective Judge system i:i A.ll erica is played cm, ana should not nowadays be allowed to stand in -the.way ei an -xperimeiu being made m n; 1 .- ci lone • When the Government lir-t siarted progressive legislation the bowl v.vs .'cpeul-i-dly raised that the country wono! go ■ j the dogs ih no time, but it dirt:i 1 ; • >a the other hand, it pro spot ed. It. Ims continued to prosper, neap no mi the bum wails of the opponents of progressn-.' legislation. It is to be hoped taut .U’Seddon will continue in his good work, and keep a firm grip on the handle ol the political plough. Another matter re:erring to Judges, and I am finished. Oi ate Judges have been sentencing prisoners to the lash for offences against women and children. Now, would it net bo better to have males charged with these offences medicallv examined as to the state of their mentality ; and, if their brain was diseased on the question of carnality, would it not be better to keep them securely locked up for the. renainder of their lives, instead cf cutting he backs off them with a lash P If thev re mentally diseased, they inherit, such traits from their parents, and the more merciful wav to deal with them is to do -.-.■ hat I suggest. How can a private

fledging have a deterrent effect on_ mentally diseased males? This flogging in many cases appears to be the corporal punishing of lunatics. THE “KAIL-YARD” QUESTION. Air Alartin Chapman, addressing the editor of the "Times,” writes: —1 observe that you, in your article of the 22nd inst., on tlie alleged authority 01 the Premier, and against my explicit denial, maintain the accuracy of your statements. Permit me to say that I am unable to credit that the Premier ha.s given the weight of his authority to an}- of the statements I have denied. 'lnat the -statements are without foundation in fact I am prepared to substantiate. Are you equally prepared to substantiate that they rest on the authority of the Premier? You ask three questions; the answers are simple. (1) The Government made no move till alter I bad purchased, and consequently long after Air Bell had offered to lease, not to sell. (2) 1 did not, and do not know whether the proposal was under consideration or not. (3) I believe Air Bell is willing to lease the rest of his land, and that he has made an offer to do so. lam unable to see the relevancy cf any of the questions. \ou say-there are other facts which do not reflect credit on some ox the (three) private owners. This has no other meaning than that they reflect discredit. I challenge you to proclaim any such facts. I fearlessly assert no facts exist to the discredit of any of the owners. if you fail to declare your supposed facts, you will have to submit to ttie inevitable inference every honest man 1 will draw. Your article suggests, nay, more than suggests, that 1 purchased the land with a view of obtaining exorbitant compensation. Tho innuendo is gratuitous, scandalous, and without a vestige of justice.. When I made the purchase I did not know or even guess that the Government desired -to acquire the land; and, as I truly stated, the first int filiation I had of this desire was the information received long after my purchase that tlie Government intended to “take” the laud. Ail I did know- was that an offer made by Air Bell had remained for weeks or months without acceptance or answer—that offer being to. lease, not to sell. Aly single purpose was to add a sheltered piece of land to my garden. [We, of course, accept Air Chapman’s statements that his sole desire was to enlarge his garden and that he was not aware of the land he bought having been previously offered to the Government,. But, if ho coveted a portion of his neighbour’s “kail-yard” and privately negotiated a purchase, where is the . harm in the Government doing the same thing? For, -we repeat, that i.s all the Government has done as yet---not a single formal step having been taken in the direction of compulsory acquisition. We cannot "help Air Chapman’s perversity in refusing to believe our plain statement that we have the Premier's authority for our version cf the facts; and there is no "reason why he should be super-sensi-tive as to statements concerning himself, when be does not hesitate to insinuate that we first invent our facts and then, without warrant, allege that we have the Premier’s authority behind us. “Honest” men may draw their inferences from the conflicting statements, and from the insinuations of Mr Martin Chapman, as well as from his fustian “challenge.”— Editor -“N.Z. Times.”] NEW ZEALAND FEDERATION. “Advance New Zealand,” writing from Kaikorai, Dunedin, says:—ln opposing federation, New Zealand stands in her own light. Every small shopkeeper goes down before the long purse of the big one, and New Zealand will go down before the competition of America, the Old Country and Australia. The thing is to join in with Australia. Then big workshops w ill spring up hero, haying all Australia to trade with and New Zealand will held her own, even if wages do fall a bit. New Zealanders 'will be able to buy raw material cheaper, to manufacture cheaper, to live cheaper, and to trade with the outside world. While buying raw material cheap the employer will be enabled to pay his workmen as good wages as under -protection. By buying from the world as cheaply as they can, manufacturers will be enabled to sell to the world cheap and to make a- profit. British ships run about seventy per cent, of the commerce on the high seas, because freetrade enables shipbuilders to buy cheaply the raw material to build their ships. Freetrade among the forty different States comprising the United States has made America, and it will make Australia too. Big manufacturing' concerns will spring up, and tho little man will go down before the big. Let Now Zealand beware and join with Australia at. once. With cur matchless climate and Crops w r e ought to more than hold our own, especially in farmers’ produce. I don’t see why wo should pay more for everything we want, when ive can get it cheaper by joining with Australia. POPULATION Oh’ WELLINGTON. “Fifty Thousand” writes : —Some of us, in fact many, "cherished a fend hope that Wellington would be a city of 50,U'J0 after the late census. Unless the Regis-trar-General mends his ways, our fond hope will be a fond delusion. But, seriously, are not the following places suburbs of Wellington in every sense of the term :, Scntoun, -Karaka Bay, Miramar, Day’s Bav, Rona. Aluritai, Ngahauranga and Johiisonville ? The first six are purely seaside resorts used largely by citizens especially at the time when the census was taken.. Tho others are suburbs both by their nearness to and dependence upon Wellington. Watch the trains and see how many go in and cut to work. None of .the places named arc in the boroughs of Karori, Melrose cr Onslow. It is no doubt convenient for purposes of counting to take these boroughs only, but the places previously named are equally suburbs.

HOME FOR INCURABLES. I notice in Friday’s ‘‘Times” (writes “Subscriber’’) an extract from the “British Australasian” in reference to the Incurables’ Home Bazaar. Surely Lady Gwendolen Cecil’s appeal for contributions is contrary lo the purpose of the Bazaar, which, I understand, is for raising funds build a home fur chronic invalids. May I -ask, for/the benefit oi those who are not, “in the knew,” to which object the proceeds ol Lady Doirrlas's stall 'till be devoted—to r:.!-e funds to build an Incurable Home or a memorial wing!" 1 think th< pub-ic h.iv ( . a right to ko«.« . ,-c chat • when . visiting the bazaar, tln-v may decide t.o which obieet they would prefer to subscribe. Am anv lodic s Voiding a stall for 'he Queen’s !.uulic: