THE WEEK.

Otago Witness, Issue 2467, 26 June 1901, Page 48

THE WEEK.

" SAnauira aliud imuri, »aud namentia unit." — iaytskt.. "Gooa uaiure aua goon sense must ever jOiu."— Fori.

By the time tin-- i^ue oi the Witnos is in the hand* of our readeis the The Duki and Duchess of CornGreat Kveut. wall and York will be ir our mid-t. In "New Zealand we nevet can tell in ;my mattei concerning the v,eathei what ? ilay or an horn may bring forth, bii at all events while \ie write the prognosis, a', th ioctois put it, is fa\ourable — veiy much &o. If his Royal Highness has to ccept Ihe frosts, ot Otago ir lieu of till rain; and gales f Wellington it will he in bad xchange. We can. oi coius-e, have othei tilings besides tio-i-. in this exhildivaing part of New Zealand — but let uf no< anticipate ;vil. TUe North, general!}', we must admit, ivha 1 - with it-, warmth, its Maoris, iU mkau palms, and its sub-tropical verdure, had a gieat advantage ovei us. But wa doubo v. hethei in that beautkul but somewhat eneivatiny

country the people can cheer as lustily as we can down heie. We shall see. We are also a little under a disadvantage in so far as the gloss of noveltj must of necessity be quite worn off all our efforts to make an attractive demonstration. The aiches, tlie devices, the illumination?, etc., must all be getting rathei commonplace to the Royal visitor by this time. But we must remember that their object in visiting these colonies wa not to see conventional demonstrations of welcome. The visit had a veiy important national aim. It was to still further consolidate the happy relations existing between tlu Mother Country and its "far-flung" offshoots in these seas. The opening of the Commonwealth Parliament was the first incident, no doiibt, but the bare visit tc otier places will prove every whit as pregnant of far-reaching results. It is in viewing this aspect of the case that we are led to express a hope that patient attention will be paid to the schools' demonstration. These, too, are apt to be wearisome when they are met at every turn. But it is of great — we might well say vast — importance to the Crown itself, to the mother country, and to all the colonies that the young generation should be impressed with a historic occasion Mich as this visit at a time when their minds are most susceptible to lasting impressions. These children are the future colonist*., whose loyalty will have to fight out the future destiny of New Zealand, and, .should unhappily the occasion again arise, fight the Empire's foes wherever they may declare themselves in this quarter of the globe. It %v ill be no bad thing that, long years hence, tire children may be able to say — "I remember when I was a little chap being paraded before the present King and Queen of England." The young mind is easily fired with sentiment, and it could hardly be fired with a better sentiment than that of patriotism and loyalty to the legal head of the State, the symbol of law, ordei, and civilised Government. It only remains for us to express the earnest hope that all circumstances may hsppily concur to make the visit -x notable success from the point of view of our distinguished visitors.

There is something contemptible in the Three telegram, sent by the three Democrats City members to Sir Joseph Ami Other Ward. "We deeply regret Considerations. tha( . yQU> ag ft leadw of the Democratic party, should have accepted a title." Were we to take this oracular utterance seriously we should say that the telegram betrays a very remarkable confusion of thought. But we do not take it seriously, any more than we did Mr Barclay's recentlyuttered eulogium on the late Queen. When Queen Victoria was on one occasion toid that a member of her Ministry . had been talking very highly about her, she quietly replied, '"It doesn't matter what he thinks of me ; the essential thing is what I think of him."' These three Democratic worthies may yet find, to their surprise, that the essential thing is not what they think of Sir Joseph Ward, but what he thinks of them. But to leuirn to the confusion of ideas. When the three members wrote of the "Democratic party" they used the phrase as if it were synonymous with "Republican party." There is no earthly reason why a leader* of a Democratic party should not accept a title. A Democracy is defined to be "that form of Government in which the sovereignty of the State is vested in the people, and exercised by them either directly, as in the small republics of ancient Gieece", or indirectly, by means of lepresentative institutions /as in the constitutional States of modern times." Here the essential thing is that the power should be vested in the mass of the people, with the Sovereign or the Governor (as in the case of a colony) standing bj to take care that tire dictum of the people be instantly obeyed. But all this* is trifling with the .subject. The City members knew perfectly well what they were doing. They were posing as Democrats ; popularity -hunting ; looking aftev theL own skins ; willing to take all the benefits tc be got fiom professions of loyalty at one moment and hostility to thrones and dynasties the next. Hence we may say the thing was contemptible — "which the same we beg leave to maintain." We suppose it is right that the distribution of honours should, in the main, be determined by the advice of Ministers. It would be veiy embairassing to a Government to pee the honours going to their opponents. But in a mattei such as this, where fairness and impartiality are the principal requirements., and where the interest ol the Crown, itself is involved, there should be a sharp limit placed upon the application of the purely party view. The individual opinion of the Governoi might be called in as a corrective. The distinction conferred uprtn the Hon. J. G. Ward is fairly deserved. He is a very capable business politician, and progressive in the most useful and practical sense of the term. The same distinction bestowed upon the Hon. J. M'Kenzie i* a graceful acknowledgment of the public seivices of <f lifetime. We heartily congratulate botb gentlemen upon the ho'noui they have leceived at the hands of the hen ti the throne. Bui with regard to Messrs W. C. Walke. -aid C.idman the case is -different Botl< have been, though lespectable. quite colourless Minister, with no individuality 'md mall initiative. Here is where the' "nequality comes in. Mr Walkei, w may presume, 'ias been honoured because oi the fact that for some years he has held the portfolii of Education. But the map who devised and piloted through the Education Act 24 years ago — Mr C. C. Bowen. of €liiifttclmicl]— is still without a decoration ot any kind. As foi the Hon. W. Rolle«ton, ln's claims aie paramount : his long caieei in New Zealand has been an effort on behalf of smal 1 }ttlement-.. Th Hon. Johr- Bryce, too. ha done yeoman".-, servicf lo the colony ii> hi*- day, though A may be said Lhat lie made that day too short by a somewhat Quixotic retirement, riios-f mer are out if the running, howevei : they liav nobody to urge theii claim:- — possib'y they are not them.seiie« con^iou* of having any — which, as it happen* adds to the cuum.

Let no one suppose that Mr Seddon haa forgotten himself. He is playing a game of his own, and playing it boldly and skilfully enough. No one knows better than he does how to make capital for himself out of patriotic loyalty onrthe one hand and the anti-title "Democracy" of the three City members on the other. The explanation is simple : he wants (and is fairly entitled to) a higher reward than that of any of his colleagues, and he wants it at i more convenient reason.

There wa« a debate in the Fedeial Porhamerit ni Australia upon the A Tad question whether Ministers Example should annex to their very from l expectable, but not extrjvaAiistralia, gant, salaries the honoiarium of £400 which every member is entitled to ; or whether, as is the case here, they should forfeit the honorarium, when they become entitled to the salary. The result was what might have beer expected — the annexation was carried by a. considerable majority. We say that this is what might have been expected because, although we are well aware that the rank and file of representative bodies are often slow and grudging enough when a demand is made on behalf of Ministers, the Federal Hou&e of Representatives is probably not yet conscious of having any rank and file. That is a sort of consciousness that- dawns very slowly on the mind, especially on the political mind. There i' a sprinkling of ex-State Ministers in the House, and there is of course the usual number of ambitious men, and the Assembly knows that any new Ministry must be formed as the present one is — by persons drawn from all the States (the same system that yields us our Cadmans, Hall- Joneses, T. Thompsons et hoc genus), so that no one in the House can be quite sure that it may not be his cwn happy fate to add to the Federal salary the Parliamentary honorarium of £400 a year. The feeling of "the country" is supposed to be a check on members sufficient to prevent them from personal grabbing. But this check, like a good many others, quite fails under the extreme gullibility of the free and independent Sectors. "Does he want to see his representative Assembly composed entirely of rich men?" — (Cries of No !) "Does he want to see the best men in the country kept out of the House and out of the Government?" — (No! No!) "Does he want to see all our beneficial labour legislation repealed and a new policy started to benefit the rich? Well.then, how can they blame me for fighting the battle of the poor?"' There is no relevance in all this to the question at issue, but that does not matter. The elector goes home under the impression that there has been a conspiracy on foot against the poor man, and that his member, by adding to his own emoluments, in esse or in posse, has somehow managed to smash up the conspiracy for the time !

It may be asked, What need we care here for what they do in Australia? The answer is that the action of Australia will almost certainly re-aci here in New Zealand. .In connection with Ministerial salaries and allowances Australia is always quoted now. Most of the arguments in favour of the increase of Ministerial salaries here, and also of what is called "the £40 stea.V were drawn from Australia. Those who think that the recent debat -md A'ote in the Federal Assembly has escaped the notice of our astute Premier must be very ingenuous indeed. We should not be at all .surprised to find that before the Bill to increase our honorarium to £300 a yeai comes before die House, it will contain a clause extending it to Ministers in addition to their salaries.

Tbere i^ a proverb which says thai "it is better to be born lucky than The rich." Mrs June Smith, of Talune Talune notoriety, should, we Poisoning imagine, recognise the tiuLh Case. of the proverb and the application to herself. Three different juries summoned to try her on a charge of murder, and murder of a peculiarly deliberate and cold-blooded kind, have disagreed and been discharged. Mrs Smith has not been, acquitted, and she has not been condemned, sc that she is still amenable to the law if it were thought desirable to continue the proceedings. But the At-torney-general of New youth Wales lias decided not to proceed further with the case, so that Mrs Smith may consider herself safe ; and <-o may the press if they desire to comment on the trial. Mrs Smith's position is equivalent to the Scotch veidiet of " not proven," but she is not in as secure a legal position as if that verdict had been pronounced in her case. A great many people admire the Scotch verdict, under the ignorant belief that it leaves the accused person liable to fuithei proceedings, if fresh evidence should crop up. As a matter of fact it is the equivalent of a verdict of "not guilty." The moral position of the individual is affected, not the material or legal. He cannot say " I was tried by % jury of my countrymen and was acquitted." But he can afford to acknowledge his crime from the housetop*, or yo round explaining the method of it- committal on a lecturing tour with perfect -safety so fai a^- the lawwas concerned. It is, Me think, quite^right that th prosecution of Mrs Smith should conic to an end now. Humanity md decency put a limit to the number of State piosecuuon*; to which r person may be subject on a serious charge such a that of murder, r indeed m any charge. The State must not appear x> be hunting s human being to death, for the longer the piocess goes on the smaller th chance of an ultimate verdict It is distressing to find that a man may be done t( death ir the deliberate way in which Coinvay was, •aid that no one should expiate the lime. Cut on the other hand we must not forget oui own sound rule tha* i is better Due hundied guilty persons should escape than that one innocen* person should suffer. Where three juries one after the other disagree there must be o strong element of doubt somewhere, and whei> we cea«c to give an accused person the benefit of the doubt we lose the sheet inch or if our judicial system. It would seem as if the disagreement u£

juries several times in succession, and in very serious ca^es, was becoming '{inte <« common feature of twentieth century trials. There were two ca;=es in this neighbourhood recently, and there wa 1 - the Pierard case in Wellington, in which the .Supreme Court/ very properly declined to take upon itself! the duty of ordering a fresh prosecution. These persistent disagreements may be meie accidents, or they may connote a slow moving development of the jury system. If each jury in bringing in its verdict is guided' entirely by the evidence that comes before it there may be no harm done. But if the second jury determines that it cannot come to an agreement because the first could not, then a good deal of mischief — for which a lemedy would have to be found— might spring up in our judicial &y&tem.

Mrs Jane Smith may be thankful for the. luck that has attended her. IShe has been rescued from the very jaws of death in consequence of I)'je inevitable tendency of the human mind to differ on propositions submitted to it. And more than she sus- • pects. perhajis, she may be thankful thai ! th'i victim Conway — we do not say he waiHKK, victim — was of a peculiarly ingenuous [ and unsu.spejting character.

Writing of ingenuousness we doubt whether in the public life of the A world there is a more in-Simplc-iniaded genuous, simple-minded creaPoJitieiaii. lure than the member for Port Chalmers, Mr E. G. Allen. Hi* mind i.s positively infantile in its simplicity. Speaking .it Pent I'halmeis the other day lie .said he could not conceive why in a countiy like this, "so essentially pastoral, it should have been left to the Hon. John M'Kenzie to take the first steps in the interest of the dairy farmer. Before the present Government came to his lescue the condition of the daily farmer, outside those who had milk runs, was pitiable in th& extreme. Now, thanks to the Dairy lndustiy Act,"' etc., etc. Now, when did the piesent Government came to the rescue with the Dairy Industry Act? The act was passed in November, 1898, and came into force on January 1, 1899. The Hon. John M'Kenzie — Sir Johu as he is now — himself came into office in January,, 1891. Can Mr E. G. Allen " conceive " why he should: have let theso eight precious years pa*< 3 before he " came to the rescue " of the dairy farmer? If it was so very disgraceful for the other party to have done nothing up to 1890, why' should their successors have left tli3 industry to itself until 1899? The answer is quite simple, though apparently the problem is insoluble to Mr E. G. Allen. When the industry had got firmly established, and had begun assuming large proportions, legislation was demanded to deal with it. But previous to the time of Sir John M'Kenzie the industry was in swaddling bands, in the merely experimental stage. Mi E. G. Allen declares it i> in its infancy now : what condition does he suppo&e it was in in 1890? Mr Allen seems to be quite under tilt impression that incomplete refrigerating plant and all the accessories of a modern dairy came out ia the Philip Laing and the John Wickliffe ' Referring to the "£4O steal," Mr Allen, of course, defends it, but he does it in his own. inf mtile way. The matter, he sayr, has come in for " some hard knock o .'' After complaining that it seemed imposible for a session to pass without the Opposition, raking up some " scandal " — they couldn'trake up any scandal if the scandal itself wei' not there — Mr Allen goes on to say that '' the objection raided against the allowance was not so much on the groundsthat members were paid enough without it. but because the proposal to increase it was uot introduced by a bill. As a matter of fact it was presented to the House for the m>t time on the Estimates. It was a distinction without a difference." Now, how are you to deal -with a man like this.? Wo do not believe Mr Allen wah deceiving his constituents : it seems certain rather that his own mind is incapable if seeing where the difference lies. We suspect that it would be simply wasting time and space for us tc explain. Mr Allen wouldn't understand the explanation. But we may say this much in the hope that it may let m a chink of light upon his understanding. If next session a bill is brought in in proper form to raise the honorarium to £300 a. year, still, owing to what was done labt year to the Public Revenues Bill — giving items that pass the Estimates the force of lav — the £40 can be all the same added if> the £300. Or it may be £1000 instead of £40. Last session the door wai properly opened to coiruptiou. Asked it he would be -Hilling to extend tin duiation of Parliament, Mr Allen answered — and the answer makes us doubt whether Mr Allen is really as simple as lie look* — tha*- *' if it were the general wish of the Hou.se, and if it could be shown that the interests of the colony would be advanced by extending the time, he would vote for the extension.'' He is pretty sure to find it the general wish of a newly-elected House (who naturally don't wish to go through tin mill ot an election any sooner than they can help)- and he "would very poon. convince himself that the change would '• advance the interests of the countiy.' But it i s -surely deplorable to find a public man standing there with hi< fingei in his mouti. and without the ghost of an opinion of his own on the subject! As for the change, it has been vaguely talked of lor years, but avill nevei take place. Mr fcsedcUin wouldn't dare lo do it. The interest' of the colony lie m having th< power to call it.- representatives to account at leasonable periods. Tt it lets that check out of its hand- it d<>erve- to be behaved at ever}' turn.

Amongst the \cry old Xathes in ramp af Rotorua was a vetPian chief named Tokena te Iverehi, who is one of the two poison- who e->e;\ned from the eraat lancL slip at Te Rapa. Lake Taupo, in 1846, when ln» relatiie, Te Heuheu ami 50 people ol th ■■ tribe were killed.

While excavating a trench at the Spit, Sjdney, on the 11th inst., the workmen unearthed a human ekull and thigh bone fron. about 2ft below the surface. No other linilw were found, so it is surmi-ed that tbo«e* di» covereel are the lemains of an üboiigin.'l.