Untitled

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 267, 15 December 1914, Page 6

As a; result of the failure of the Liberals to dislodge the Government, we are bound to hear a good deal about the iniquities of the first past the post system of electing members of Parliament, despite the fact that 71 members out of 76 secured absolute majorities in their respective districts. We shall be told that the Government is in a minority throughout the eountry of some 25,000, and that under a different system of voting the Liberals ought to have secured two or three extra seats, and thus obtained the Ministerial office for which' their souls hunger. But there are two sides to that story. If we take the seven Christchurch city and adjoining electorates we find that about 17,000 votes were cast for Reform candidates and about 35,450 for Liberal Labour candidates. That is to say the Liberals in the parlance of the electoral reform crank, "wasted" some 18,440 votes beyond those actually necessary to defeat their opponents. They would like to see this surplus voting strength employed in returning Liberals elsewhere. Or in other words, they are not content with saddling Canterbury with a kind of Parliamentary representation that has made it notorious, but they desire to inflict members of the same i calibre on other districts further afield.

We imagine that the rest of the Dominion will object strenuously. There is not room for more than one Isitt, and one Thaeker in Parliament at a time, and although candidates of this type commend themselves so strongly to Canterbury electors that they can poll two votes to every one obtained by Reformers, any scheme for transferring the extra votes and employing them elsewhere will be strongly resisted in localities where saner and more rational political ideas prevail.

Some five weeks since Berlin reported, and: was glad in the belief, that exCommandant Beyers and General Christian : de Wet were over-running the Union at the head of their rebel commandos. To-day we publish the official report from the Cape that the rebellion is at an end, and that some 7000 rebels have been captured- tfr have surrendered. The ; infamous Christian de Wet is a prisoner, caught after a hot pursuit; Beyers suffered an inglorious death by drowning while attempting to evade the Government troops. So much then for Germany's intriguing in the Union and the rank treachery of the two leaders who could accept for so long all that the British Constitution could offer ,them, only to turn traitors when an opportunity for revenge presented itself. Thanks to the speed and determination with which General Botha met the rebellion, Germany has profiled nothing by this at one time ugly-looking trouble. Beyers, aforetime Commandant of the Union forces, was possessed of dangerously intimate information; de Wet, the veteran campaigner of the veldt, was an old comrade-inrarms, but General Botha, uninfluenced by these considerations, struck with both hands when he found that moral suasion was unavailing. His demonstration of loyalty to the Flag was a striking example of the spirit that flag (Tan inspire, even in Britain's whilom enemies. General Botha's splendid ardour on behalf of the safety and peace of the Union is one of the finest tributes ever paid, to the justice of British administration. No wonder that the Mother Country was stirred to the depths by this exhibition of patriotism. It would have its lesson, too, for Berlin, where it was alleged that not only South Africa, but Canada and Australasia were only awaiting the opportunity to cut adrift from Imperial Britain. Germany's disillusionments are steadily being added, to.. . ; ? . ; . ■

Where is the ; super-Dreadnought Audacious? The-American newspaper Press reported, with circumstantial detail, the sinking '<s' this battleship off tiie coast of Ireland on October 27 last/ through contact with a mine, or as the result of being torpedoed. The story included details; of the wireless <*all for help, which 'was responded to by the Olympic—the liner, it is said, not only saved the crew of the 1 Audacious, but made an unavailing effort to tow the sinking warship to the coast. Early in the present month the "Morning Post," referring to a "certain naval mishap/a month old,'' ridiculed the ostrich policy of the Admiralty in concealing the story of ah accident which -was published broadcast in ttie States and circulated with a wicked joy in Germany. The London "Times," a day or two later, had something to say in connection with the mattei' referred to' by the ''Morning Post,'' but so far the • Admiralty has not seen fit either to contradict or confirm the story. '■ It has steadfastly refrained from making any definite pronouncement with respect to the Audacious. The surgeon of the Olympic, on his arrival in New York, characterised the tale as a sheer fabrication. If this were so, why is it that the Admiralty has not come out with the denial, and put all doubts at rest by stating that the - Audacious is still with the Second Battle Squadron df the North Sea Fleet? Now, not only has the American Press published the story of the mishap, but an issue of the San Francisco "Examiner," which arrived to-day, contains a half-page picture of a photograph of a big battleship, allegedly the Audacious, slowly sinking, with two destroyers standing by. The port deck of the stricken vessel is partly submerged, and the crew can be seen in dark masses gathered on the bow by the starboard side. The picture, which, it is stated, was made from the deck of the Olympic,- shows several rescue boats putting off laden from the •twp'f- unnelled monster battleship, whose | great guns are easily discernible. -After I this it is up to the Admiralty to take the public into its confidence and state the truth about the Audacious.

Although the returns of the prohibition poll arc still incomplete, it is now possible to make a comparison with the percentages of previous years. Commericing in 1896 with a percentage of 37.82 in favour of no-license, the proportion of electors in favour' of nolicense rose to 42.23, in 1899; 48.88, in 1902; 51.27, in 1905; and to 53.45 per Cent., in 1908. In 1911 national prohibition became the leading issue, and local no-license lost interest for many people. At any rate the poll of that year showed that 55.83 per cent, of the electors favoured pro ; hibition. That is to say, 259,943 votes out of 465,604 went for prohibition, and 279,363 votes wOuld have carried it. This year the count, so far as it has gone, shows 240,540 votes in favour of prohibition out of 487,008, or a percentage of 49.40 in favour of prohibition. In. other, words, the prohibitionists are back where they were in 1902-