PUBLIC OPINION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9323, 25 August 1908, Page 1

PUBLIC OPINION.

♦ ■ FROM YESTERDAY'S NEWSPAPERS. (By Telegraph.) VOTING BY ikfACHINERY. _It is not easy to understand Sir Joseph Ward's attitude towards the definite adoption of a reajly up-to-date roting machine. The dominion has reason to pride itself that it has been In the van of modern legislative progress, yet upon a subject of such importance as a more l effective ballot we find the invention of a New Zealander cold-shouldered and the matter shelved apparently sine die. We are not supporting any f a d in the matter, but simply contend that, in the interests of that voting efficiency upon which justice itself may very conceivably hinge in certain circumstances, Sir Joseph Ward and his colleagues should modify their present uncomprising attitude tojrards a laborious inventor.— Dunedin •'Star.' '• FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE. It is impossible for any unprejudiced person to withhold his endorsement from the course which the Arbitration Court adopted in the Canterbury case. It is a course justified by • arguments which, so far from being, as Mr M'Cullough says of them, exaggerated and Imaginary, are distinctly irrefragable. — "Otago Daily Times." PRISON REFORM. The time has come for wider application of the indeterminate sentence, and refusal to any longer allow the criminal to be a scourge to himself and others, but before this great advance can be made the prison system requires overhauling from top to bottom. — "New fcealand Times." THE GRAND REFUSAL. With the Canterbury case the arbitration law starts a new era. Hitherto the Court has held that it was sufficient that there should be a legal dispute, %x\d that the dispute should not be trivial in order to warrant interference. Now it expounds what we believe is te entirely new doctrine that " before such interference is justified it must be clear that there are substantial grievances or abuses which can be' redressed effectually by the Court, and that the benefits to be obtained by its Interference will more than compensate for any mischief that may result from luch interference." This is a doctrine winch the law does not prohibit, yet which the law does not justify. — "Evening Post."