The Wairarapa Daily FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1880.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 2, Issue 565, 10 September 1880, Page 2

The Wairarapa Daily FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1880.

This session is over, and soon another Statute Book will be added to thegrowing tomes of New Zealand law, There will be the usual Acts and Amendment Acts, and AmendedAots Amendment icts for the quiet reading of bewildered brains. The volume will be neatly bound, an 4 sold at a sufficiently low price. It will be at least dry if uninteresting reading, In the course of a few years some one will make a digest of the previous year's legislation, ;and the volume for 1880 will sink into insignificant space. Mr Gatling Gun's" attempts at law, in the form of a violin and tin whistle .tax, will ocoupy a nameless grave; while Harebran Scapegrace's /'Jawjaw Protection Act, Amendment ; Act" will be pointed at as a model of legal acumen. We respeotfully desire to enter our 'protest agMMt;the»«i amendmenti... Jf

" Jaw-jaws" are to be protected, then let them be bo under an original and not under an amended'-Act. These amendments are simply a cumbrous nuisance, enabling J tyros in legislation to air their crotchets; or somebody has aired a crotchet, and then an amendment is required Let us. put a case: Mr A would like to see an employer of labor held responsible for accidents which happen to his r workmen, say broken legs,. Mr B would like to see the workman assure himself against loss from such accidents. The workmen, with all respect to Mr B, would prefer to keep their legs, What is the best form for legislation to take? Or let us suppose another case: A bridge is required within a few miles of a township. The County Council, the Road Board, the Borough Council, and numerous, other local bodies are appealed to. : Each turns to the Act under which it'exists and the amendment Acts thereof, in order to find out what is to be done. UneAot says so-and-so, and another Act says very much the same. Here, "you must do this," and there "you are compelled to do that." The result happens that the bridge, somehow, is not erected. Dare we make a suggestion ? Should we risk being hounded out of the commmunity as lawless innovators if we mildly suggested to our legislators not to try to do too much! Leave a little to the public, and then so many amendments would not be required. Would it not be better, in framing important Acts, to leave much more to those who work the Acts than is at present left? In place of a strict Act (the square peg) with numerous strict amendments (other square pegs) endeavoring to fit into round holes, would it not be more advisable for a young colony to allow matters to drift a little by giving extensive powers to local bodies to frame by-laws, even for "amalgamation of interests," and under such by-laws to work out the destiny of an Act. Gridirons do not precisely fit every fire bar. Stone blocks are not always cut with razors. Pile amendment upon amendment, and then—repeal the whole! Is not this the history of the past?