DAYLIGHT SAVING

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 11960, 15 October 1924, Page 6

DAYLIGHT SAVING

We are sorry for the hostile reception of. Mr Sideyis Daylight Bill. But the hostility is not really what it seems. To judge by the speaking, the hostility 1 seems the unanimous condemnation of the House of Representatives. The fact is that the time at disposal was short enough to keep the friends silently fearful of helping to kill the bill by killing time. This will he some consolation for the consistent, ■ persevering, publicspirited champion of the measure, who is animated solely and conspicuously by the desire of public benefit. There is miich to be said for the hill, and much to be said against it; for instance, the plqas pro and con about the hardship the change of time would inflict on the very hardworking people who are the backbone of The dairy industry. There is also diversity in the results of the trials given to the new thing. For example, England likes it, while Australia has cast it out. In this dilemma, made by combination g>f theory and practice, one sees there is something in Mr Holland’s suggestion to take a referendum of all concerned. A referendum, however, has its difficulties, as the suggester seemed to see well enough. A referendum carefully arranged by districts on the local option principle might be tried. Theoretically, it might safeguard opponents who already have to get up at unearthly hours against the domination of fihoßO whose hours are perfectly easy. In practice, as the experience of I local option warns us, violence might be done in this very way. And in this ■ case the local optlonist could not appeal to the evi] consequences he sees in things as they are. If a very carefully, regularly arranged system could he devised, with the necessary safeguard, all would bo well. As'things are, one cannot say that there is much . ham to Humanity in postponement.