The Stratford Evening Post. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1912. THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 57, 31 October 1912, Page 4

The Stratford Evening Post. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1912. THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

Commenting upon democracy and the individual right, the Sydney “Daily Telegraph” says that in upsetting the conviction of the Melbourne Steamship Company on a charge of refusing to answer inquisitorial questions asked by representatives of the Crown, the Federal Chief Justice was moved to make some comments upon the diminishing respect that is being shown in Australia for the liberty of the subject. Sir Samuel Griffith regretfully said that “sometimes he was inclined to think that in some parts of the Commonwealth, the old-fashioned, traditional, and almost instinctive standard of fair play to be observed by the Crown in dealing with subjects which lie had learned a long time ago to regard as elementary, was either not known or thought to be out of date.” This remark the “Telegraph” goes on to say, although directly suggested by the Melbourne Steamship Company’s case, had reference no doubt to the general trend of legislation in the direction of setting up a despotism under the name of democracy, now observable wherever Labour rule prevails. “Under this new regime,” the Sydney paper continues, “the right of the individual is becoming of less and less account every day. Powers are assumed, the like of which, when exercised by the arbitrary rulers of the past, were denounced as incompatible with the existence of a free community, and the abolition of which Ujen represented democracy’s .chief aim. Hut now that the might which was at that time denied to be right has passed into other hands, it is treated as such again. The latest type of democracy considers itself morally untrammelled by considerations of justice or fair play to anyone standing between it and the attainment of its ends, whatever those ends may be. Tyranny practised by the many over the few is morally just as odious, and just as indefensible, as tyranny practised by the few over the many. it is the same thing to the sufferer, no

matter what it, may he called, or a 1 whoso hands it may have to he endured. This is a truism which some of those who have lately come to an excess of power, which has intoxicated them, seem to overlook, with the result that Parliaments now clami the right divine which was repudiated as a blasphemy when asserted lay maillisted monarchy in other days. .It only goes to show that human nature remains practically the same through all the changes of all the ages, and that merely altering the names of governmental systems has little effect on the quality of the government dispensed hy them.”

THE “BABY BONUS.”

Speaking on the subject of “Eugenics''’ the other day, Dr. Arthur said that the most efficient and profitable way of expending the sum of £600,000 proposed in Mr Fisher’s “baby bonus” scheme, was by the training of the schoolgirls of the Commonwealth, of thirteen years of age and older, in the care of children. If qualified nurses were appointed hy the State Governments to specially train schoolgirls on this important subject, he said, it would imprint upon their minds scientific knowledge which would stand them in good stead in their later life. Then there could he “creches” established, also in the care of capable nurses, and the girls could receive instruction to enable them to carry out the duties. “Possibly if some of tin l money was spent in eugenics in Aus tralia,” said the speaker, “it would have a very good effect; and a sun. could also he set apart for preventing the unfitted from settling in Australia from other lands. There is a large number of diseased persona landing here every week. This prevention alone would do more good than the ‘baby bonus’ would do.”