Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18674, 2 October 1922, Page 4

Important end striking speeches cn questions of finance are rare in the Legislative Council. There is no lack of debating ability in the Upper Chamber, and though we would not encourage any undue display of loquacity of an academic kind, more frequent addresses of the calibre of that delivered by Sir Edwin Mitchelson on Friday last might not be unwelcome. Any utterances of Sir Edwin Mitchelson on political affairs are entitled to respectful attention, and as an ex-Minister of the department he has a special claim to speak with authority on public works matters. His elaborate comment on the financial conditions, past and present, of the New Zealand railways contained some statements and recommendations which are not likely to meet with universal acceptance, but it also included more than one reminder of an unquestionably salutary order. It might be difficult to persuade a majority of the people as to the desirability of taking the control of railways and other public works out of the hands of Parliament; and it would not be much easier to secure general support for the proposal to pull up the lines of all railways which do not show a profit on the working Indeed, we think that Sir Edwin Mitchelson takes too shortsighted a view of the matter of payableness. Some of the lines in his black list are not unlikely to pay their way in course of time; and, besides, monetary payableness is not the only, though it is <i very important, consideration. The' notion of pulling up the Otago Central and Gatlins rails would be preposterous. Sir Edwin Mitchelson is on safer ground in censuring those politicians and local communities who make unreasonable demands for the expenditure of public money when public money is scarce, and there is a great deal of force and wisdom in the view that ■ the people should be assisting the Government by their forbearance, nob embarrassing it by their importunity.

Mr Massey’s reply to criticisms concerning the cost of the High Commissioner's Office appears to have been convincing in the main, though it is not to be suggested that there is no room for improvement in the present system of the representation of the dominion in London. It is reasonably contended that greater vigi'ance and activity might be displayed in promoting the commercial and producing interests of New Zealand, and it may be that efficiency in this respect has been hampered in some degree by Sir James A'len’s frequent absences on highly honourable employment of international import. Mr Wilford's contention that, the dominion is not getting good value for the money expended in. the maintenance of the High Commissioner’s Office is not substantiated by the available evidence, and the Prime Minister was able to furnish a reasonable explanation of the increased cost of the London service in comparison with pre-war circumstances. The work is heavier than it was, and the burden of taxation and high prices has warranted the payment of larger salaries. A vote of £SOO to meet the cost of entertaining can hardly be considered excessive. On the contrary," there ‘was force in Mr Massey’s remark that “ if the High Commissioner got off with £SOO he got off very easily.” The talk about “ Oriental splendour ” is ridiculous. Entertaining on a moderate scale is a legitimate and indeed necessary feature of the High Commissioner's Office, and while extravagance is to be deprecated, parsimony could only tend to injure the prestige of tire dominion.

Sir Bertram MacKf.xxal’s eminence in the realm of sculpture entitles him to speak with some authority respecting the garbing of a statue. Discussion regarding a projected statue of the late Mr T. J. Ryan, former Premier of Queensland, seems to have led him to refer to the “ appalling lack of artistry in trousers." This as from one artist to another—-for your fashionable tailor considers himself an artist, and not without show of reason —is a trifle severe. Sir Bertram is credited with favouring the disguising and chastening effect of barristers’ wig and gown. Even so, the trousers cannot be eliminated altogether, and we have a conspicuous statue in Dunedin which shows that their terminals constitute a severe test of the sculptor’s art as well as of his sincerity. The Royal Academicians have been told by sartorial critics that they represent the distinguished personages figuring in their portraits as wearing clothes scarcely even fit to give away. So there is a little rift in the lute as between the Fine Arts and tailor-made attire. But, after all, circumstances make all the difference to cases. Julius Cassar will not visualise in trousers. We would not have Nelson, or Captain Cook, or Burns clad

in the modern variety, for obvious reasons. They would be practically unrecognisable. But because it is so much tho case that clothes make the man—who can ever forget tho sweep of Mr Alahtaliui’s nether garments?—we have endured, and must go on enduring, their “ appalling lack of artistry.” The barrister’s wig and gown cannot be summoned for all occasions. Of them it may be said, too, that while their effect is admirable in a court of law, they do not altogether become a public place or hold the mirror up to nature. Imagine the effigy of Abraham Lincoln in such draperies! Lor the sculptor to attempt to get rid of the trousers is but a. subterfuge. They clamour for reproduction, even in a Lord High Admiral, and it is lor the artist to attest his greatness in grappling with and triumpning over them. Thus shall he become immortal.