The Star. FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 1896.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5519, 20 March 1896, Page 2

The Star. FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 1896.

" Veky few persons availed themselves of the reduction in fares on the Christ-church-Lyttelton line yesterday, the traffic being about normal." Of course. No other result could have been anticipated, save by the official mind ; and the official niincl is in some respects so constituted that nothing but a surgical operation could get common sense into it. The official wisdom of the Department devised the brilliant scheme of instituting " cheap " fares on Thursday afternoons, whereby hundreds of holiday makers were to be induced to spend a few hours at the Port. The "cheap" fares proved to be Is 6d for first-class and Is for second-class. The holiday-makers "winked the other eye," as they will continue to do ; for the tramway companies offer them splendidly conducted services to Sumner and New Brighton, at either of which places they can spend a whole day, if they like, for a travelling charge of 6d..The Christchurch-Lyttelton scheme of the rail-, way officials is sheer foolery. :What is imperatively needed on that line, for the inducement of a largely increased traffic, and for the benefit of the people, is a substantially reduced tariff, applying not merely to Thursday afternoons, but to every day in the week. We hope to see that surgical operation performed' by somebody. A Gbetmouth contemporary reports a case which seems to us to constitute a striking example of unwarrantable judicial severity. A lad named Gillespie was arrested on the charge of having failed to obey a maintenance ordfer, and was taken by Constable M'Keefery to the lockup. The constable placed the lad in one of the cells, and then, leaving the door open, went to another part of the building. Gillespie walked out and made his escape, but was recaptured shortly afterward. Later on he was charged, before Messrs Campbell and Thomas, with unlawfully escaping from custody, and was forthwith sentenced to eight days' solitary confinement. Now, assuming the facts to have been correctly stated, there can be no hesitation in describing such apunishment as cruelly severe. The lad was placed in a cell, but the constable " left the door open, and went to another part of the building." Technically, no doubt, Gillespie was still in custody, and in a place of confinement. But what was he likely to know about that ? There was the open door, the constable had vanished, and the lad took the perfectly, natural course of regaining lu3 liberty. One would have imagined that in such circumstances something would have been said about dereliction of duty on the part of the constable, but there seems not to have been the slightest comment on this aspect of the matter. But what we are most concerned about is the infliction of so severe apunishment — for eight days of solitary confinement must tell heavily upon a mere lad — for what seems to have been a relatively trivial offence, and we hope that the Minister of Justice will not fail to look into the matter.