Wairarapa Daily Times [Established Third of a Century.] THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1910 BI-CAMERAL LEGISLATION.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LXII, Issue 9593, 3 February 1910, Page 4

Wairarapa Daily Times [Established Third of a Century.] THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1910 81-CAMERAL LEGISLATION.

It is said to be characteristic of constructive works in America (notably machinery), aud it is indeed frankly admitted by Americans, that they are not put together with any view to permanency. They aro made to sell. and to servo the occasion. After that they are not expected to be effective. They aro, iv fact, obsolete, and are consigned to the scrap-heap. Somehow this doos not appeal to the British mind, which is wedded to tlie idea of durability and permanency. The British mechanic prefers to make his original machine so durable that its excellencies will remain undisturbed, while its subordinate , parts can be renewed or repaired or re-cast to suit special requirements. It is the same old and tried machine, though, all through. -~

The opponents of the bi-cameral system of legislation appear to be of the American persuasion in mechanics. They would have one Chamber to make aud pass laws, to suit the occasion, aud which might be repealed at auy time subsequently when circumstances changed. This means, of course, that panic, sectionalism, aud all sorts of influences might originate laws for temporary use. No matter how orude or ill-

considered, tbe law would serve the purpose of the hour, aud then it could go to the scrap-heap of repealed laws. This is what uni-oamoral legislation would mean, aud who, wheu he seriously considers tho question, would advocate auy such condition of things? In the first place, let us observe tho general eil'ect of such legislation upon society. According to our idea, a law-abiding mau possesses the fundamental qualification of good citizenship; but how shall we ask the rising (or the risen) generation to respect aud abide by laws that had been hatched out in a hurry, aud that may be repealed at a moment's noticoV The man, iudoed. who advocates uni-oamoral legislation can scarcely be siucero if ho is intelligent, or intelligent if ho is sincere. Revision there should bo of all work that is to command public confidence, and surely if society is to exist at all it must count respect for the law as one of its rudimentary instincts. To ensure this, tho law must havo some permanency aud finality. Tnis it cannot have uuloss it is subjected to revision, which, to be olt'ectivo, must bo by some authority other thau its originator, tho popular Chamber. The question of the need for a second Chamber seems really to admit of uo discussion.

Tho question that really matters is tho constitution of tho Revising Chamber. What aro the qualifications to be sought for in a revisory Experience, breadth of view aud sympathy, combined with acknowledged intellectual superiority. The democracy requires in its revising body a tribunal in sympathy with its main and broad aims of reform, but by uo meaus committed to its methods; it requires tho rovision to be honest aud fearless. It, therefore, demands that tho members of tho revising body shall be very carefully selected—above all, not from among politicians of tho professorial order, or not from among politicians who regard politics as a "game," but from conscientious meu whom fortuuo renders independent, whom the public have long recognised as its leaders intellectually and morally. The selection must not ho made by tho Cabinet. It must be made by a special machinery resembling on a small scale that which is provided for t'»e election of a President of the United States. Anything like a plebiscite or the turmoil ot a popular election must bo avoided as incompatible with the dignity of the occasion.