PASSING NOTES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11809, 11 August 1900, Page 4

PASSING NOTES.

Mr Seddou and his Ministry, bringing in a bill to increase their own salaries, arguing for it, voting for it, keeping the House up till 4 in the morning to pass it, seem, at a first view, to cut rather an ignominious figure. But what would you have ! —other way there was none. The item " travelling expenses," of convenient,, though scandalous elasticity, had already been worked for all it was worth. Under that heading the limits of possibility had been reached. There remained only the bold way, the open way-, the way Mr Seddon has adopted. Public life, alas, has its moments of sacrifice; such a moment arrives when you are compelled to bring in a bill to . put money into your own pocket. The situation was relieved a good deal in the present case by mixing up the question of more salary for the Governor with that of more salary for his Ministers. A most judicious arrangement this, enabling, as it did, malcontent Liberals to inveigh against extravagant expenditure whilst voting for. the bill all the same. Of the passing *of this important measure there was, of course, never any doubt at all; the " Liberal" majority would stand on its head if Mr Seddon asked it. But progress was greatly facilitated by the promise of bigger screws all round. A mere private member, whose whole parliamentary function is to be an obedient joint in Mr'Seddon's tail, may now hope tor a rise from £240 a year to £300. Not that in a matter so delicate Mr Seddon pledged himself in terms express; he has too much self-respect for that. Terms express?—oh dear 'no !—but nods and winks and wreathed smiles, which, in the circumstances, are just as good.

Hoss Public School, August 1, 1900.

Dear Civis,—l hope you will lift up your voice and testimony against the continuance of our present system of tables of weights and measures, whose vise leads to endless confusion, mistakes, and misunderstandings. Let me give two examples.

1. In the Otago Witness of July 26 is an illustration showing " The erection of the cock on the Ranfurly dredge," with the statement that the week's returns amounted to 12340z, equal 1021b lOoz, or " nearly lewt. So says tho writer, forgetting that the 1021b are troy pounds, equal to only 70lb 4oz avoirdupois, the table including hundred-weights.

2. A local collector of nuggets was lately exhibiting his lat«3t specimen to an eager crowd at "The Corner, with the remark: "No; it is not quite 4oz; but it turned the scale at a Jib in '" Blank's shop." Then he beamed on his audience, whp smiled in leturn, having fully grasped the idea intended to be conveyed that " Blank " used light weights. I did not think it expedient to inform him and them that a 4oz nugget weighed 1920gr, whereas 4oz of "Blank's" commodities weighed only 1750gr. " "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to try to give enlightment.

Metric System.

In its origin the metric system, so called, is French; possibly that is why the British have never adopted it. A hundred years ago, when recasting their institutions on the principles of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, the French abolished, not only the monarchy and the Christian religion, but. all existing weights and measures. In this last, reform they were right. The present French way of counting, weighing, and measuring by tens, by multiples of 10, and fractions of 10, is the. shortest, surest, easiest way, and most civilised peoples now use it. But there are subjects on which the British are as conservative as the Chinese, and this is one of them. Our notation of money is both decimal and duodecimal; in weights we have three systems, in measurements I cannot off-hand say how many. To do in these matters as the French do would be not only convenient^ for ourselves amongst ourselves, but would facilitate trade with foreigners, and help. .British commerce all ,the world over. Yet these considerations move "us not.. I can think of only one point on which we have given way. Why do we pay so odd a rate as twopence halfpenny on foreign letters? Because twopence half penny is 25 centimes, the fourth part of a franc, and because, in order to get the advantages of a postal union, we have to sink our prejudices, putting ourselves in line for once with the rest bf civilised mankind. But at all other points we remain firm, preferring our native muddle to order, simplicity, and clearness copied from the foreigner. I am very much like this myself. Thus, to take- another example, British spelling is inconsistent, anomalous, indefensible; but could I bring myself to spell—as". the Americans do-c-" traveller " with one " 1," " theatre " with the . " c," before the "r," "mould" without the "v"? No, I couldn't; and,yif I could, the editor wouldn't let me, nor the printer, nor the public. 'AH argument is in favour of spelling reform, all sentiment against it; and sentiment prevails,'as in such a matter it should. British stiffness is often wrong-headed and ill-timed; all the same it is to British stiffness that we owe the British Empire. .'.-...

As for the stiffness characteristic of the Chinese, that, of course, is precisely what we are going to chasten out of them. There is a point at which stiffness ceases to be a virtue, and becomes mere cussedne.ss. The Chinese have passed that point. They are addicted to an obsolete civilisation—fossilised, stereotyped, altogether out of organic connection with the civilisation of the rest of the'world. Ages and ages ago the Chinese invented gunpowder, but they still put bows and arrows in the fighting line. They invented the mariner's compass, but never used it to venture from their own coasts;, they invented, printing, but in the matter of type are still in-"bondage to hand-made wooden blocks. The first railway laid down in China was from Shanghai to Wusung, 10 miles—a line, as it were, from Dunedin to Port Chalmers, for the convenience of merchants and shipping. The Shanghai foreigners got leave to' make it; but no sooner was it made than the Chinese officials bribed a man to commit suicide on it, demanded the head of the. enginedriver as compensation, and finally got the concession rescinded and the line torn up. In some of the treaty ports a foreigner going about under an umbrella is • accused of interfering with the rainfall, and the spouting round the eaves of a foreign consulate has provoked .street tumults by the same offence. Yes, in his liking for the old ruts and his determination not to be moved out of them John Chinaman is stiff with a more than. British stiffness. That is really the secret of our. present quarrel with him. The yellow man won't move on, and it is part of the "white man's burden " to make him. *

I am not sure, however, that I shall be permitted to speak of the Chinese as " yellow." The Rev. A. Don, evangelist to the Chinese in Dunedin, complains of the following sentence in the "Review of Reviews—"An almond-eyed, yellow-skinned, and pig-tailed Napoleon is unthinkable." Such expressions, .says Mr Don, are "in execrable taste." Why so? Where is the offence? "Almond-eyed" strikes me as pretty and poetical; it ought to be reckoned' a compliment. " Yellow-skinned' is merely descriptive, and there can be no offence in describing a Chinaman's skin-as yellow, for yellow it is. If one may be permitted to refer-to complexions at all, there can be no more harm in saying that a yellow man is yellow than in saying that s. "white man is white. There remains tiie epithet " pig-tailed," which, I admit, is not- poetical; but neither, on the otnei hand, is it abusive. A Chinaman does wear a pigtail, and-- isn't in the least nshnmed of it. But he would be greati} ashamed if he lost it, and might even doubt of ultimate salvation, since it is by his pigtail, as I understand..that he hopes to bo hoisted into the Chines? Paradise Mr Don's concern for the .feelings of his cover that they had been affronted. For my own part, 'I am not much disposed to "and inoV punctilios in speaking of a eo7le who, at this very moment, are Kring and-' murdering British men, women, and childrm wholesale.

'"F M " in Thursday's Daily Times has a letter which, unless I draw attention to 'it I am afraid will bo, lost to literature. To tell the truth I don't myself peruse and ponder as I ought the oracles emitted frnvn week to wcnlr. sometimes from day o day V "F M".But I don't want other people to fall into the same condemnation. It should be known, therefore that an inscrutable Providence is nnuellinc someone' amongst us to address the newspapers in a series of mystic utter-

ances which require, if they don't repay, careful examination, and that these utterances are attested by the letters "F. M." or some analogous signature. For example, in Thursday's Times, after learning from "F. M." that "Continental hatred felt for England " is " a cogent and clarified fact," we are told that it is our duty to strengthen the fleet "to such an nable. extent as bsing able to make an invader's chances visibly hopeless of ever making the attempt." This is not English, and I don't think it can be Volapuk; nevertheless it is not altogether unintelligible.' But what shall we say of the warnings that follow?

De ready with mobility in preventing, by. increased sea power, and teach everyone of us the use of that terrible weapon, the magazine rifle. Sink politics when postulating.—l am, etc., F. M,

" Sink politics when postulating " ! This is a staggerer. Since the Delphic oracle left off business there can hardly have been spoken to men anything equally pregnant and profound. "Sink politics"—yes, -certainly ; I am only too anxious to sink politics anywhere and * anyhow; but will some sage who can talk English'kindly tell me in what way I am to sink politics "when postulating"? That is the whole point, observe. It is not enough to sink politics; you must do it when postulatjng. And when is it that we are postulating? Can the reference be to some physical condition, or physiological process, or what?. The riddle is beyond me, and I give it up.

Letters to the editor, it would seem, do not afford sufficient vent to "F. M." when the eruptive fit is on; he supplements "them therefore, by letters to Givis. "Here. is one:

Dear Civis, —So the literary luminaries again launch their pedantic barks of philological pedantry, as grammarian Tipples; in the-form of art critics.

Now grammar, very properly, is the art of. speaking and writing correctly, but who is to define this art? and by what authority has anyone the right to check the , cosmetic flow, of the beautiful power of language? The Rosicrucian doctrine of sylphs, gnomes, nymphs, and salamanders in a stanza; or, if one descends to 4he Platonists with the difficulties of parsing, and sn\, "He is a friend of mine,'. or " Give me that book of John's," am I to. parse mine and John's in the possessive case, and at the same time in the objective case?. In fact no language but English can boast of such gr»! eful flexibility, and its idiom cannot be restrained by grammatical rules; to attempt doing so would be the cant of principles rather than perception.. .

"Why, this is a more excellent song than the other!" as somebody says in the play. i have struck out quotations from Dryden and* Pope, partly as. being nothing to the purpose, but chiefly as not beino; by "F. M." What do we want with Popes "and Drydens.! "F. M.," when for a.moment he forgets politics to condescend on literature, is himself the true Pierian' spring; and, as he says, nothing should be. allowed to " check the cosmetic flow of the beautiful power of language" (his own); which language, as he subsequently remarks, is "of such graceful flexibility"" that " its idiom cannot be .restrained by: grammatical rules." Neither can it. Subjected to rule and reason "F. M.'" might become intelligible, and thus cease to be. interesting. .• Civis.