South Canterbury Times. MONDAY, MAY 20, 1889.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 5011, 20 May 1889, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. MONDAY, MAY 20, 1889.

Many statesmen,or as we have not many statesmen, say many politicians, object to what they call tinkering legislation. But when a bole is really found in the legislative kettle surely it ought to be tinkered. Our politicians do not look out for leaks, they are too keen to take up new-fangled nations about patent spouts and so forth, and are willing enough to consider reconstructions, but repairs are too small matters for them. One very ugly hole has been in existence bo long that people have become accustomed to it, and disregard it until something occurs to show how distressing the leak from it may be, yet they are not heard to command that the leak be stopped, as they have a perfect right to do, and as sensible people would do. To drop the figure and come to the fact. Two things were done on Saturday, in obedience to law which the law should not only nob require to be done, but in respect of one of them should emphatically forbid it to be done. In the harbor a corpse was found, which had been in the water three weeks and was in a most offensive condition from the progress of decomposition. A wise law would command that such an object should be kept as far from human dwellings as possible, ytfc our law required it to be carried into the nearest hotel. There, according to law, a room had to be given up to the horror for half a day at least, an offence to all the neighbourhood. Next a Jury of half a dozen men was collected, and

these men, whether they liked it or not, whether they were strong or of the j most delicate physical and mental constitution, had, again according to law, to enter the room and look upon that revolting object. Both these requirements are abominations. The placing of such a loathsome mass of corruption in any room of an hotel, must cause a lasting disgust in the inmates towards that room ; it is dangerous to health ; it is an injury to the owner’s business ; it is a disgusting wrong. To demand that men shall, whether they like it or not enter the room, and “ view ” the body, and be made otherwise most disagreeably aware of it, is another disgusting wrong. Wherein lies the peculiar fitness of an hotel for the temporal bestowal of such objects? Wherein lies the utility of jurymen “ viewing ” such things? It is required by law, and the law should be amended the very next session. A similar and even more disgusting case occurred at Nelson a fortnight ago, and similar cases may occur at any time.

Il is a matter of opinion, and of locality also to some extent, whether the colony is in a worse state now than it was twelve months ago. Mr Turnbull, of Timaru, South Canterbury, says it is. The editor of the Wairarapa Star, North Wellington, says, with enthusiasm, it is not. He writes : “In the Wairarapa district the labour field has rarely been in a more healthy state than it is at present. The tide of settlement has never flowed more actively than at is now doing towards the bush ; the land is absorbing the labour that it available as rapidly as it can be supplied. New industries are springing into existence, new towns are in process of formation, and in spite of the property tax and local taxes, improvements of an important nature —all calculated to further develope the resources of the district—are being carried out with every expedition.” The writer goes on “ There can be no doubt that the improved state of the labour market is owing materially to the adoption of protection. The New Zealand Protectionist can already point out with confidence, that his most glowing predictions are being more than realised. Wages have improved, the demand for labour has increased, the cry of the unemployed has been silenced, the number of employers has been multiplied. Why ? Because the working classes of New Zealand are no longer subjected to the • unrestricted competition of the cheap labour of Europe and the East.”