South Canterbury Times, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1901.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3185, 9 September 1901, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1901.

The murderous Anarchist who has so nearly murdered President McKinley, is probably more a less a lunatic; so much so as to be scarcely responsible for his actions. But if he is not responsible others are, and these are the cranks who have no idea of commtting murder themselves, nor of inciting others to commit murder, but who by tongue and pen teach what they are pleased to call theoretic anarchy; persons who in due forms of logic argue that the nations would get on very much better without any government. We are not acquainted with the details of their arguments, but merely with the broad general principles just stated. Some of these theoretic Anarchists are personally very amiable people, who are as much horrified perhaps as others at the clumsy attempts of ignorant disciples to put their theories into practice. They ought to be made to share the ignominy of the assassins their teachings produce, instead of which, some of them are held in high repute, for other reasons in other countries than their own, of, course, where they find safe domicile as “political exiles.” Self-defence will yet show that the harbouring of political refugees is too dangerous to be continued as a national practice, ;and that the vilification and lampooning of foreign governments, so commonly indulged in, is a.pt like curses to come home to roost. Whilst execrating the individual who has been guilty of so hideous a crime, we must not forget that he is a product, and that the blame lies chiefly with those who miseducated him and misdirected his zeal into so dabolical a channel.

Saturday’s “Otago Daily Times” sketches the history of a swindle in share dealing, but does not indicate where or by whom the swindle was worked. A paiftel of 5 shares in a company unnamed, was sold by the holder’s broker in two lots of 25 each, paid for, and two transfers properly completed for them. The shares were subsequently sold several times over, no stamp duty being paid in these cases, and at last they came into the hands of brokers who noticed'that the original transfers showed no monetary consideration. They had once shown it, but the writing had been removed by an acid. There is, therefore, no lawful transfer of those shares in existence; the original seller has been paid for them, and numbers of people have bought and sold them (cheating the Stamp revenue all through, yet the original seller is still the registered owner, and can probably be sued for calls. He has been begged and prayed to give fresh triansfers so that the last buyers may be made safe; and he not unnaturally refuses, and urges an investigation. There are several points about the statement of this, case, and others appear in complaints about cheating in connection with dredging shares, that seem to show that the Stamp Department ought to do a great deal more for the protection of the public than it does. It affords some protection to those who are within reach of its offices, and who are fully aware of the nature of the protection it can afford, but the majority of peope do not know this, and to them the Stamp Act is merely ataxing instrument, and its operation to be avoided, if possible, even at the risk of being fined.