The West Coast Times. FRIDAY APRIL 12, 1912. INFIRM OF PURPOSE.

West Coast Times, 12 April 1912, Page 2

The West Coast Times. FRIDAY APRIL 12, 1912. INFIRM OF PURPOSE.

Aui» all tho hustle of the, territorial camps and the opposition of the Socialist:! and peace advocates it is pleasing to find that wc have a Minister of Defence who is proud of the scheme and is not afraid to say so. But excellent as was the tone of Mr. Myers’s references to the progress of tho scheme, the nature of his references to it.; future administration was such that Ik must not be surprised if the general

effect of his statement is to leave a good deal of bewilderment and anxiety it. tho public mind. Docs tho Government intend to enforce the provisions for compulsory training, or docs it not? The so-called “commutation” of tho sentences passed upon certain recalcitrant defaulters in Christchurch was universally accepted as answering this question in the negative. Since then Mr. Lauren :ou and Mr. Myers have in turn endeavoured to show that such a conclusion is unwarranted. Asked by a Christchurch reporter to state tho intentions of the Government regarding the imprisonment of defaulters who refused to pay their fines, Mr. Laurcnson replied that “the Cabinet had come to no decision in the matter at all. In

fact, they were powerless to do so. The law was there, and the Cabinet would d i nothing until Parliament met.” This is characterised by the “Evening Post” a, a remarkable statement to come from a member of a Government which had already released certain offenders who had accepted imprisonment as the preferable alternative to paying a fine. Mr. Lnnrenson declares the Government to ho powerless to come to any decision in the matter; yet before he spoke and before the Government had been in existence a week, it had arrogated the power of interference with the decision of the Court. “The law m there,” says Mr. Laurenson, “and Cabinet can do nothing until Parliament meets.” The law is there, and Parliament alone can repeal it. Hot

Cabinet can reduce it to a farce and a nullity, and that is what Mr. Laurenson and his colleagues seem to have made up their minds to do. Befogged by tho self-contradiction of Mr. Lauren son, the puzzled patriot turns to the Minister of Defence, in the hope that his less subtle intellect may he governed by a common-sense which will make him more comprehensive to a plain man. And this is the help that he gets from tlie Minister of Defence: ■‘The Government is determined to see that the law is vindicated by all those who commit a breach of the Defence Act. It was not the intention of tho Legislature that the penalty should involve imprisonment, and Cabinet was now considering a remission of the sentences now being served by men who have refused to pay the fines inflicted for breaches of the Act. The Government had no intention of making any departure from the method of enforcing the Act that has been followed up to tho present.” Tlie delightful inconsequence with which affirmation and negation are hero interlarded is oven more perplexing than the simple “Yos-No” of Mr. Laurenson. 'Hie Post restates tho four points made by the Minister of Defence as follows : 1. Tlie Government is determined to vindicate the law. 2, The Legislature never intended to vindicate tho law by imprison-

mont. 3. Tho Government is, therefore, proposing to remit the sentences of imprisonment passed hy the Courts. 4. Tho Government has no intention

of abandoning the methods of

enforcement hitherto prevailing. We have only to add that the ultimate sanction of the law a.s it stands is imprisonment, and that this has been tho method of enforcement hitherto prevailing, in order to convict the Miuistei of as pretty a derangement cf reasoning as anybody could wish to see. His conclusion is not merely lame and impotent ; it is, liko Air. Lauren son's absolutely self-contradictory. When the' - Minister of Defence faces the next deputation it is to be hoped that he will clear up the contradiction and give an answer more befitting to his own reputation and the dignity of tho Government. Tho Legislature, he says, did not contemplate imprisonment. But will he suggest that, apart from disfranchisement and disqualification for the Public Service—penalties which do not weigh very heavily with the ordinary youth of eighteen—the Legis-

lature intended that any offender who had the hardihood to defy the law and tbs’ judgment of the Court should depart scot free? Such a. suggestion would he insulting, indeed, to the intelligence of the Legislature. “The lav.- is there,” says Mr. Laurcnson, “and Cabinet can do nothing until Parliament meets.” To a less sophisticated intelligence than his the natural meaning of that statement would be that while the law remains on the Statute Book it is the duty of the Cabinet to administer it faithfully. To play tricks with it is to jeopardise, and possibly to wreck a scheme which has the warm approval of 90 per cent, of our people, and, if given a fair chance, promises discipline for our young men and safety for the country. When Parliament meets, some substitute for imprisonment may bo devised which will he equally deterrent, while keep-

ing clear ot the . criminal. Meanwhile a Government which prac-

tically abolishes imprisonment, while unable to provide such a substitute, is guilty of betraying its trust and truckling to those sinister forces which arc arrayo dnot merely against this law but against every other.

NOTES AND COMMENTS,

Though the ballot of British coal miners showed a small majority in favour of a continuation of the strike, the messages from the fighting front leave

little room for doubt that the end of the struggle is approaching. The National Conference has voted overwhelmingly for a resumption of work in England and Scotland, and many thousands of men have gone, back to the pits. It is beyond the power of any section of the leaders to long delay the general working of the mines. The cost is now being counted, and tbe estimated figures are memorable. One assessment puts the total loss to the community at £50,000,000, including £6,000,000 in minors’ wages, £2,000,000 ir strike funds, £8,000,000 in wages of

workers in industries paralysed by the coal famine. This huge amount of £50,000,000 presumably covers only the cost to date. The general scheme of British

industry has been so shaken that a serious loss mu t continue to the country as a whole for some time. It is a heavy penalty for tho strike method, ami the burden of it mainly falls on the workers who decided to try to force their schedule on the country. For their privations and sufferings they can point to tho recognition of the principle of a minimum wage, but other ’ in Britain can reply that this recognition could have been gained peacefully and constitutionally at a cost much below £50,000,000, and ‘without tho sore

auuisliment of tons of thousands oi mothers and children.