Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17428, 24 September 1918, Page 4

It is high time that the authorities of the Public Health and Railways Departments, between them, gave their attention to the system under which persons suffering from tubercular trouble' are conveyed by rail from Dunedin and from "Oamaru to the sanatorium at Pleasant Valley. No special provision whatever is made for the accommodation of these sufferers on the trains. The absence of any such provision surely involves a violation of one of the rules of public health. A person is admitted-to the sanatorium primarily, no doubt, in order that he may receive in a suitable environment the treatment that is appropriate to his condition. But his removal from the environment of his own home is prompted also by the of the danger that if he is not removed the infection may spread, from him to those around him. It is a curious reflection upon this state of things that in proceeding to the sanatorium by train the sufferer travels as an ordinary passenger in a compartment which may be, and sometimes is, crowded with other passengers. It is distressing to all concerned that this should be the case, but the system which requires this indiscriminate mingling of the sick and the healthy—or perhaps only the indifferently healthy—is also clearly unhygienic. ' A plan under which special accommodation would be provided, such as would at once spare the feelings of the sufferers and their relatives and respect the principles of public health, ' should recommend itself to the authorities as both desirable and necessary.

It may be conceded to the German Government that it would convict itself of singular inconsistency if it were influenced by the representations which have been made by Spain in the direction of sparing Spanish shipping from the illegal attentions of the submarine service. If Germany were to make any distinction in favour of Spain it -would be more difficult than ever for her to attempt to excuse her submarine policy as it affects other neutral countries such as Norway—the greatest sufferer of all, —Sweden, Denmark, and Holland. It is not difficult, therefore, to understand why she has intimated that she "does not accept the principle involved " in the Note which Spain addressed to her in protest against the destruction of Spanish vessels. If she had replied that she did not recognise principle at all she would, indeed, have said nothing but the truth. It is idle to appeal to Germany on the ground of principle: nothing but force makes any impression upon her. And it is fortunate for her tli*it most of the neutral countries which have reason to complain of the illegal destruction of their 'shipping are unable, by reason of their geographical situation., to employ force against her. Holland keeps hundreds of thousands of tons of her shipping in port rather than expose her merchant marine to the risk of attack by Germany. But the United States Government has reasonably taken the view that, if she will not use her own shipping to transport the foodstuffs which she requires, Holland must be content to go without. The other neutral maritime countries, underterred by the risks entailed by the Germans' policy of indiscriminate submarine warfare, carry on their trade as best they can bv sea. Spain is, however, the only one amono them which can afford to threaten reprisals upon Germany; and it is perhaps true enough that, as the war is going, Germany will not be very greatly concerned if Spain follows the example of the United States and joins the Allies.

If the rulings by the Speaker of the House of Commons are to be accepted in our own Parliament as precedents for the guidance of its Speakers, as they generally are, a recent ruling of Mr Lowther will be -welcomed in this dominion. It has been assumed by members of Parliament that they are privileged, in the course of debate, to assail ordinary citizens in terms which they could not otherwise use without exposing themselves to the, risk of an action for damages. The assumption has been based on the practice of the past, and has never been successfully challenged "until a few weeks ago. Mr Lowther has, however, created a precedent in the matter—a precedent of great value in the sense that it affords protection to persons who have hitherto been defenceless against attacks delivered upon them by members of Parliament safely entrenched behind their privilege. Remarkably enough, it was Mr John Burns, a respected, member of the House of Commons, who does not commonly use violent language, that was checked by the Speaker. On this occasion —on July 25 —he spoke of The Times, the Daily Mail, and the Evening News, three of the papers know as the Northcliffe press, as "owned by blackguards, edited by ruffians, and read by fools." Mr Lowther immediately called m j Bu is to

order, saying that The Times was owned by a member of the House of Lords, and it was unparliamentary to refer to a member of the other House as a blackguard. Upon Mr Pringle interjecting that The Times was owned by a company, not by Lord Northcliffe, the Speaker extended his ruling in such a way as to lay "down a general principle respecting the use of opprobrious epithets by members of Parliament. He said:

I liavo always understood Lord Northcliffe is the owner of The Times. If The Times is ownedi by a company, that makes it worse, because Mr Burns was alluding to a larger number of gentlemen. There could be no justification for so alluding to anybody, whether a member of the other House or not, and I call upon Mr Burns to withdraw. Ho had no business to refer to owners of newspapers as blackguards.

Mr Bums pleaded that he was under the impression that the rules allowed a member freedom of speech so long as he did not make a personal reflection on any member of the public or of the House of Commons or House of Lords. The Speaker, insisting on the withdrawal of the offensive expression, said that Mr Burns, of all persons, would object to being designated in the terms he had used, and ho was sure Mr Burns would not wish to apply to others that which he would dislike himself. It is probable that Mr Lowther's ruling was too sweeping, but if the precedent which he has created should avail to prevent scandalous abuses of privilege such as have sometimes occurred in New Zealand it should prove exceedingly useful.