THE WEEK.

Otago Witness, Issue 2426, 12 September 1900, Page 37

THE WEEK.

•'Snnauara iliud natura, aiiu'i sapieutia dlxit.' — JuvaniL. "Good nature aua gooa seuse must ever ;oin."— Popk.

- * Mr Seddon stood guard over an nsir wax doll, , wearing the bpdge A - "Minister of Lands," when Ministerial the latter was being tos&ed Apprentice, playfully about ir the Hoo&e the other day in connection j with the rabbit question." Mi Duncan, a.« Mr James Allen had no difficulty in shc/tv-" ing has wobbled ludicrously OA r er die matter. He had — probably has still — certain opinions of his own, which .-savour of common sense. He mu&t have held them, 'ndeed, rather strongly up to the time of lii^ taking oifke, for 1-c-t session he went the length of actually expressing them — which

is quite unuMially far for Mr Duncan to go. Ho lias had, however, 10 submit these, and doubtless *)11 other ideas (if any) of which he may be secretly possessed, to the approval of the permanent officials and Mr Seddon, and evidently some of them didn't suit, and had to be altered — and weic. As one of Mr Duncan's duties under this snipping and darning process wan to express the opinion that trapping does not lead to any decrease in the number of rabbits, he naturally floundered in executing his task, and among other things committed himself to the announcement th^ j rabbits have increased in Otago within, tlie last 12 month — knowing, of course, perfectly well that the exact contrary is the case to an extent which has upset all the calculations of the exporters. It will be interesting to compare the reports of his officers for the past 12 months with the Ministerial declaration. The result, we may confidently predict, will be much or the same kind as Mr Allen's effective contrast of the Mr Duncan of 1899 with the Hon. T. Duncan of 1900. Mr Duncan must not, -however, be too hardly' judged for hi.J little excursion into romance, as he had to go back to his office to meet the permanent officials afterwards, while even as^hc. spoke the eye of Mr Seddon (who found it necessary, by the bye, to speak' twice to his once on the subject) was glaring upon him lest he -should lapse into the language of common sense. .There is evidently! however, going to be a compromise, and the .settlement -foreshadowed by the Ministerial statement 'will not be the less satisfactory for being totally inconsistent with that .■;<atoment its=elf. Mr Duncan says that trapping increases rabbits— has even increased them in the last 12 months — therefore he is going to give far greater facilities for tapping in the future than in the past. We may safely assume that if he believed in -jii'3 premises he would neve:- permit his conclusion.

h should, we think, be clearly understood that the formal recognition

A Wide Turning Movement.

of a trapping season for rabbits by the Government — a necessary reform which the late Minister of Lands (con-

foi&riinusly, no doubt) resisted to the sxirems ox doggedness, except in a district where another Minister happened to be powerfully concerned — should by no means -be held to be inconsistent with the proper \is.; of poisoning when the conditions of Jic case and the season of the year indicate the effectiveness of the latter, as they often do. Mr Thomas Mackenzie took occasion to remark, in ridiculing the Minister's allegation, of an increase in Otago, that the poisoning system to which the Government pinned its faith has been a failure. Mr Mackenzie, of course,_ meant the system of using poison as the" only and exclusive - means. ' We certainly find it hard to understand how it is that one still 'finds "here and there, even in Ota.go, a belated adherent of. the, theory, that to keep vabbiis down you must poison all the year round. Reviewing the history of the past 25' years, thi) long fight through , which has been largely dominated by $kis idea — and many -hundreds of thousands of pounds have been ppent during that time in prosecuting it — iC is difficult to come to any other concluHi on than that the poisoning system h&.B utterly failed to do more than only very partially relieve the landowners. It must bs remembered that many of them tried the poisoning system under far greater inducement than any landowner now gets '<o incline him to allow trapping. Not so very long ago large profits were made on s^kins in poisoning time, while all the trapping was done at an enormous loss. Did the landowners, then, stop trapping altogether under such conditions — as, had theiv idea been merely to save themselves immediate expense, they would haye — or would the department have permitted them to stop trapping had they wished to? People calk as though, by the present export system, the landowner makes large profits which were not available to him under the poisoning system. The evidence does not tend that way. On the contrary, while poisoning was never ruinously expensive — which -trapping was. — fanners and runholders in the poisoning days used sometime.- to sell the rabbitskins iov far more than the cost of getting them ; whereas, under the export system, it seems that practically all the profits available go to the trappers and the exporters, as, indeed, they should. The landowner's compensation is, found in the fact that his rabbits are reduced to an extent which he cannot even distantly imitate by means' of exclusive poisoning, and .that with little, if any, cose to himself. The country gains by the establishment of a great industry, which has done perhaps more than anything else to absorb the surplus unskilled labour which in the past has been so distressing a problem. There is not the slightest fear that the statistics will support the absurd idea that the new industry increases rabbits ; were such the case pasture is now so valuable that landowners (who are its all but unanimous supporters) would be the first 'to put it down. Let there be judicious ' poisoning in: due place and time^ and the new, rabbit export industry will "do the The single poisoning system must go with the single frontal attack system ; lor a "wide turning movement" you -^ant tha, 3nd the "trau" as well.

Mr Duncans motion of last weak to inquire into the affairs of the meat freezing and exporting companies, ascertain their

I'lajiiig the Ignorant.

profits over a series of ycais, and do — well, do nobody knows what when thsL interesting information h&'i been acqui ed, is not a sort of thing to be («ken peiiou'-ly. At ths &amq time, H '-'.'Eioii't -a practice! joke. Tt took Us oiigh) >. line of conduct which has become .fa: oo common r-ince Mi Meddon took up the reins of office, and which has a very decided terdency to lower parliamentary institutions in Lhc eyes of the people. It there is anydiing at all vet'iou^ in the matter. i> i ilmo 3, Minislei of the Ctown should leiul ii incise]' to a. piece of mimimery of the 3d::d The origin ol die proposition was rovealecl aiter Mi Oarncross^ who very properly took

it in all seriousness, had done denouncing it. When an unusual motion or Bill ie moved or introduced in Parliament, and the mover or introducer is not the author, the real Simon Pure invariably betray:; himself by rushing into the defence witb an exaggerated and tell-tale sense of the responsibility which he conceives tc be upor him. In the present case the culprit (w; use the expression in all good nature) was clearly Mr Hornsby, member for Wairarapa. Now, the bare mention of Mr Hornsby's name in this connection is equivalent to untying the bag and letting the cat out. The atmosphere surrounding tLe motion becomes at once absolutely transparent, and we are able to give our readers the benefit of the view. Mr Hornsby is, as we have said, member for Wairarapa, and got there by displacing (after several efforts) Mr W. C. Buchanan, who had represented the district for some 20 years. We mention thic apparently 'irrelevant -fact merely to show that Mr 'Hornsby had a- tough job at the election',' and' was not in a position to lose any point which would tell with the farmers. Mr Buchanan is also a landoAvner. and is, or was, the chairman of directors of a large Wellington meat freezing and importing company. Here, then, wao material for Mr Hornsby to work upon to detach the fpiniers from Mr Buchanan. The bur-den-of-■all--Mr-.Hornsby's speeches was that Mr v Buchanan.' was the head centre of a meat freezing- ring- to- keep down the price of sheep and ruin the unfortunate farmer' of Wairarapa. It seems a clumsy enough piece of business now, but, then, nothing iv too ridiculous for an electoi. There was, of course, the usual refrain to Mr Hornsby's song, "You just put me in, and see what I'll do to expose the plunderers" ; and. they put Mr Hornsby in. Then, no doubt, he felt that some sort of fulfilment would be expected of him, for, alas! nearly, onethird of the pailiamentary term has already expired. He must do something or appear to do something which shall provide him with an answer to the troublesome elector who wants to know, you know. Naturally therefore, Mr Hornsby would go to Mr Seddon, explain the position, and ask advice. Promptly, Mr Seddon would jay (all i-liis is imaginary, of course, but our acute readers can judge how close it gets to the truth) — "Move for a committee to inquire into the profits of the meat companies ; it will raise a howl, of course,, but it wiM be talked out, at half -past 5, and there's &n end." Then the member" for Wairarapa would plead that unless Mr Seddon "himself moved in the matter there would be no air of reality .abojut it. "OH, I couldn't do that," would be. the .rejoinder, "it would be as much as -my -reputation for good sense is worth, but I'll- -tell- you what : get Tom Duncan to J do' it",' Ir© "doesn't care." And this is, thejoorl of mummery that gets the Government wedYt for "having some cU"U •socialistic and radical Renames ir. visTf 1

It would seem as if some Australian neivt- ;

An Idle Question,

House as to when an opportunity ■would be given to discuss the federation question irom a New Zealand point of view. The Sydney Daily Telegraph appears to think that public opinion is likely to force Mr Seddon to take up , the qiiestion -seriously from the pro-federation side. Probably Mr Massey asked the question, and Mr Herries urged the appointment of a day, simply because Messrs Massey and Herries are Oppositionists. A parliamentary- Opposition always wants days to be set* apart for the discussion of particular subjects, the mere readily, we fear, if there is reason to believe that such discussion will prove embarrassing to the Government, though in the present, instance Messrs Massey and Herries are far too astute to suppose anything of the kind. Could Mr Seddon be forced to discuss the inchoate Liquor Bill now (which we note is to be astutely, but audaciously, relegated to a Royal Commission, as if there were any possible aspect of the liquor question which required further inquiry) that would put Mr Seddon in a difficulty. But he has an easy task with •federation, and in the short discussion which' ensued* | in going into Committee of Supply . l:e made it clear that he recognised the fact. We" quite fail to discover in anything that has yet beem said or Avritten on the subject any sufficient reason" why New Zealand ! should become part of the Commonwealth ; but even were s>uch forthcoming Mr Seddon's argument that Chaving stood out we should now wait arid see how federation, works on the Australian conti %at is unanswerable. That the Australian Commonwealth will ultimately be as successful as the Canadian Dominion we do "not doubt, and New Zealanders ' of all shades of opinion would be delighted to see it, for, setting aside the larger interests of Empire, it is obviously to our own advantage to have a powerful self-governing British dependency as our neighbour. That the Commonwealth might become too powerful for us is an absurdity. No one can show how such could be the case, and those who attempt to do so take refuge in some vague idea that we might "be overshadowed" by our neighbour. The argument, as a matter of fact, is all the other way ; we should be overshadowed by joining the federation. The trade argument that we might, 'by standing out, lose the market for our oais is altogether too narrow to be seriously considered in such a connection. As Mr Seddon put it, "New Zealand must work out its own salvation, and not sell its birthright for a few bushels of maize" — to say aothing of the fact that the Commonwealth tariff, looking to the number of elements composing the Commonwealth, will almost certainly approximate to oui own. On the other hand, the stretch o{ ocean which lies between heie and Australia, and which has r-lie effect, and ever must have thi effect, ol

The Mauaia correspondent of the Hawera Siar writes: —On Saturday last a. son of Mr iTvank Day, Rama road, secured some gunpowder, and wrapped ii iv a paper, and theu applied a match. The poor little felbw leceivod a frichlfnl scorching, but the doctor thinks the boy's eyesight will not be destroyed.

papers thought Jthat a good j deal of importance attached j to * the question - recently asked by Mr Massey in the

keeping the mass of the two peoples apart, would in our opinion be quite fatal to the policy of union, even if it stood alone as a barrier — which it .doesn't. But by all means le'. us have the discussion.

The Rev. W. H. A&h, formerly of Otago and now a parish minister i«i

Education in Nut Sontli Wji!es.

Sydney, has contributed to the columns of the Daily Times a description of the

arrangements imder which religious instruction is given by ministers in the schools of New South Wales in pursuance of the Public Instruction Act. Veiy much has been written before on the .-jame subject, New South Wales being naturally a iavourite "quote" of the section which assails the secular system in all the other colonies. Mr Ash writes sensibly and dispassionately, but we hope we shall give him no offence by remarking at the outset that experience has indicated the necessity of accepting with much caution the patronising generalities of most ministers of religion on the subject of the efficacy of school teaching of the kind. The colourless and devitalised kind of divinity which is alone possible where doctors (of that faculty) so signally disagree fails very badly, as a rule, to appeal to the convictions of the ordinary householder, be he religious or otherwise. It is common, in synodical and other discussions on the matter, to find earnest and even enthusiastic men quite openly avowing that they would be satisfied with the establishment of the mere principle of religious education by the State au against a purely secular limit of the curriculum, theii objection being more to the abstract idea of "godless" schools than to the practical disadvantages admitted, to result from the irreconcilable antagonisms of creed and sect. The curious idea of the "recognition of God" by specific external act, which is dear to many good citizens, is doubtless at the bottom ol such a feeling. We are inclined to gather from Mr Ash's description that he himself belongs to the easily-satisfied class of critics. Allowing for great differences in degree of the good effected according to the characteristics of individual teachers — varying from & real touching of the heart oi the children to something worse than a mere hour-a-week of formalism — we can hardly imagine any attentive reader of Mr Ash's article being greatly attracted by the .picture he presents. We cannot afford, in a matter of such great importance, to let enthusiasm run riot over such vague praise as that "despite the conditions that prevail, there seems to be substantial contentment with the educational system," but, nevertlielfcsy, "always excluding, of course, the Roman Catholics and the High Anglican party."' who are apparently not to count. The reader at once remembers that it is a byterian "minister — and, moreover, _a teacher under the system —^vho is .writing. Some ot us remember, too, a little more than that: we remeiiiber- a • certain commission despatched to New South Wales by Sir George Turner, the Premier of Victoria, under ecclesiastical pressure two or three years ago, with the object of investigating the facts about" religious' education in the mother colony, , and ; the very uncomfortable resultant analysis of the "religious" effect of the experiment upon the children generally. Mr Ash lays stress upon the readiness with. which State school teachers iacilitate an arrangement which takes the youngsters off their hands for an hour oi so now and then, but we are afraid that this not unnatural good nature is hardly evidence of their disinterested enthusiasm about results. Mr Ash himself admits that "not much can be done in the schools to apply the truths of religion to the hearts of the children," but adds that "it is not-, for him to discuss the point in this article." Why? We confess we should have thoughc that that is exactly what there was foi him to do. It is, undei the circumstances, a striking conclusion, because this NeAv SouUi Wales experiment is entirely in the hands of ordained ministers of religion — not of the State school teachers, as some still imagine over here. The only difference between the New South/ Wales system and out? in New Zealand is that, over there ministers are allowed to teach religion within school hours ; here, they must choose another time to assemble the scholars — say, before the morning arithmetic and so on begins. There is a practical difference, but it is at bottom a difference merely between 9 o'clock religion and the 10 o'clock variety. .New. South Wales has never countenanced the -pretence, much in favour among our own reformers, of entrusting religious teaching to the State teachers. If, then, ministers of religion, working within school hours, can only — by the admission of one of themselves — "teach the truths which are to be applied elsewhere" (why elsewhere?) and cannot "apply the truths of religion to the hearts of the children," what encouragement is supplied by Mr Ash's analysis to the advocates of direct "State instruction" in religion in the schools, to counterbalance its hitherto unsurmountable drawback?'.