The Stratford Evening Post WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1911. MR BONAR LAW.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 80, 16 November 1911, Page 4

The Stratford Evening Post WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1911. MR BONAR LAW.

An admirer of Mr Eonar Law, the selected of the Unionist Party to take up the mantle of Mr Balfour, tells ns that he is a fine example of that “startling modern innovation, the business man in the business of the State. Before he went to West minster ho had a long and rich experience as an iron-master in Glasgow, where dwell the men of the hard heads. His keen eye for real facts made him chairman of the Glasgow Iron Trade Association—than which, surely, theri is nothing more hard and solid and less given to chimera. Small wonder that the waves and shocks of the House of' Commons^—at present, of course, a mainly hostile House of Commons—beat in vain against an experience so bedded in the impregnable rock of experience.” Allowing something oven for friendly optimism in foregoing estimate of the new Leader. Mr Eonar Law has certainly proved that business training is good for politicians, and from the outset of his political career Mr Law has come rapidly to the front. He is described as “a man deeply reflective, touched with melancholy, but dominated by the recognition of the necessity for strong and forcible action. Whatever traits there are in his face, its strong purposefulness is a thing that stands out. Here is no fervid prophet who runs to words. Here is rather the man who, having convinced himself that a certain course of action is necessary, will work, without any personal ostentation, but with a certain grim ruthlessness, until his object, is achieved.” The self-sacrifice of Mi' Austen Chamberlain and Air Walter Long in standing aside for MiLaw is very considerable, because it is more than probable that the now leader will be the next Unionist Prime Minister. Singularly he has never had a place in Cabinet, but we are told that it was not Air Eonar Law’s fault that ho was not included in Mr Balfour’s Cabinet. In ability he was bead and shoulders above some mem-

hors of that body, and doubtless if lie had boon longer in the House Cabinet rank would have been given to him- He made his mark in his maiden speech, on the sugar duties, and before long lie was regarded, on questions of economics, as one of the soundest men on the Government side. Ho had come to Parliament with neither influence nor great reputation, but simply as a successful business man who had taken a prominent part in local politics, and he made his wa\ to the front by merit. Before long ho was regarded as Mr Chamberlain’s ablest lieutenant in the, tariff reform campaign, and since that Minister’s retirement there has been no one on the Unionist side to equal tiie younger man in knowledge of the subject and ability in presenting it.

MI LITAS Y TRAINING SCHEME. Mr C. H. Poole, M.P. and candidate for Auckland West, when facing hi? constituents the other day, said he had supported Ihe compulsory military training scheme, but he had voted that training should cease at the ag<

of twenty-nno, “mid he had never had in mind that the men in training should wear uniform.” n The Christchurch “Press” points out that if Mr Poole knew a little more about international law than appears to he the case, ho would have known what would become of the defenders of New Zealand if, while bearing arms in civili in attire, they dared to oppose an invader, and were captured. As one authority wrote: “All the authorities on the law of nations agree that the considerate treatment of the ' peaceful population rests on the assumption that an absolutely distinct line is drawn between soldiers and civilians, and that the civilian (i.c., the man without uniform) abstains from those hostile acts which are the duty of soldiers. . **.” If he (the civilian) takes hostile action against the foreign troops invading his country, he loses the rights of a civilian without acquiring those of the soldier. The condition of a prisoner of way does not exist for him; lie must lie annihilated in the interests of humanity.” Why a man should approve of compulsory training and disapprove of the men wearing uniform is a mystery, explainable only on the ground that he is intent on offering a small concession to the anti-militarists.

DIVORCE !N AMERICA. The Kansas correspondent of a New York newspaper announces with evident pride that “as a habitation of the matrimonially distressed Kansas City, according to figures just compiled, has Reno discounted.” In 1910 one in every four marriages in Kansas City was a failure, hut during the first six months of the present year only two of every three married couples managed to preserve domestic concord •and happiness. Between January 1 and June 90, 1900 marriage licenses wore issued and nearly 7(10 divorce ■suits were filed. The number of marriages. was greater than that for the first half of 1910, hut the number of divorces increased still more rapidly. Among the various causes suggested are the high cost of living, the laxity of the divorce laws, and the growing independence of women. Probably the facilities offered by the law of the State for securing tiie dissolution of marriages are responsible in very large measure for the lax ideas of Kansas people regarding the sacredness of matrimony, and ministers of religion and sociologists are demanding immediate reform. One eugenist, however, goes further. Judge Porterfield, the judge of the Juvenile Court, which lias had to assume the care of many children from broken homes, lias begun a movement which is to secure happy, 'successful marriages. “Too many pars oris marry who should not,” lie remarked in outlining his plan of campaign recently. “That is where all the divorce troubles begin, and right there the law-makers must begin if they are to help conditions. You cannot legislate divorces and broken homes out of existence as long as just anybody can get married, regardless of physical and mental defects.” In addition to haying a commission to inquire into the physical and mental condition of applicants for marriage licefises, Judge Porterfield would have’ the earning capacity of prospective bridegrooms investigated closely. He also would prohibit the marriage of perse s who had known each other less than six months. Apparently many of tin American States require such reformed legislation as Judge Porterfield suggests. They offer particularly promising fields for the labours of the cugenists.