EDITORIAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXII, Issue 7005, 2 October 1897, Page 1

EDITORIAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

The discussion on the question of art unions in the Legislative Council on Thursday does not seem to have been productive of very much in the way of practical results. There seemed to be a general opinion that it was unwise to relax any of the provisions cf the Gaming and Lotteries Act, even to the extent of broadening the scope of the common or garden art union. As a matter of fact, the provisions of the Act are practically a dead letter, not only as regards the comparatively harmless domestic art union, but also the clauses dealing with gambling in its more degrading form, which are openly set at nought by a section of the community, including many of those whose obvious duty it is to assist in the proper administration of the Act. Referring to the art union phase of the question the position seems to be rather anomalous, and it is difficult to understand why " works of art" should be permissible as prizes in a raffle, and bicycles, sewing machines, and the thousand and one other prizes which are daily offered, openly and unreservedly, should be barred by the provisions of the Act. Presumably in some far off primitive age a guileless Legislature, innocent itself of all gaming proclivities, sought to cultivate a taste for the aesthetic and the beautiful by attempting to turn the tastes of the gambling fraternity highartwards by restricting their stakes to works of art. Unfortunately those who take a joy in art anions are not as a rule those who class art culture among the necessities of their education, and they promptly proceeded to interpret " work of art" in a variety of directions calculated to turn grey the flowing locks of "the cultured." Of course "work of art " is a commendably broad phrase, and is susceptible of as much special pleading as the liquor laws or the Fencing Act. A I hand-painted elephant or a zinc-work kitchen sink can easily be demonstrated to be works ot art by even an Oamaru lawyer, whilst if the object of the Legislature was to "make our homes beautiful" by restricting our gambles to high art—and there is no other possible explanation of their prohibition—they went the wrong way to work, for many of the amateur paintings which escape all disabilities of the statute are infinitely more calculated to create domestic discord than are the cheery sewing machine or the recreative bicycle. The whole question is surrounded, however, with ethical difficulties which are increased rather than lessened by the Hon. Mr Jones' condonation of 1 Church raffles : That one expects to be ' swindled when participating therein. This opens up a horrible vista of immorality which one shrinks from investigating. It appears to us, to reduce the ethics of the question to a common-sense stand point, that an extension or retention of the statu quo of the scope of art unions ' cannot rest on a basis of principle at all ; the immorality—if immorality it be—of taking a share in a Murillo or a Greuze is just the same in degree as if one participated in a raffle for a grid iron or a kerosene tin. The Council were wise nevertheless in their decision not to j countenance anything which might: be 1 read to imply even a tacit approval of the ( gambling mania which is sapping the ] colony. They would have been wiser ; still had they abolished even the existing privilege, for apart from the moral aspect < of the question altogether and the i ridiculous evasions of the Act, the community would willingly consent to be rid j once and for ever of the abominable "art- 1 union " nuisance.

Our Wellington correspondent does_ not hold out much hope that the Committee of Privilege will succeed in reaching a satisfactory solution of the difficulty in connection with the representation of Awarua. The desire of the Government in proposing to remit consideration of the matter to a Committee was to free it from party strife and political rancour, but, no matter how sincere may have been the wish of both parties at the outset to approach the question in a judicial frame of mind, it is now clear that there is small prospect of party being eliminated from the Committee's deliberations. Ib is also pretty clear that, whatever may be the finding of the Committee, the whole question will be threshed out upon the floor of the House. Now, that is the very thing that it was hoped to avoid, and that ought to be avoided and would be avoided were the House equal to grappling with an exceptional matter in a fitting manner. But the fact is that party government has reached such an outrageous state in this colony that the House has really ceased to be a competent guardian of its own honor and privileges. It is no part of our purpose to apportion the blame for this lamentable condition of things, which is the natural fruit of a tree long planted, and encouraged in its development by all parties. Seldom Indeed has there arisen in the House a question that so urgently called for calm and judicial treatment as does the question whether or not the Hon. J. G. Ward- is entitled to take his seat as the chosen representative of Awarua, for not only is it beset with difficulty, but its determination will establish a precedent, and it is particularly desirable that where such is the case the utmost care should be exercised, so that the precedent may be a beacon guiding future Parliaments in safe and honorable courses. Even now, after the display of party feeling that has unfortunately taken place, we trust that the Committee will rise to a great occasion, and that its report and recommendations will be such as to meet with the ready concurrence of the House and the approval of the country.