I 



232 THE STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE v 



thankful if we get things straight in that 

 time. 



The principle of the Bill introduced, but dropped, 

 by the Government last session, appears to me to 

 be wise, and some of the objections to it I think 

 are due to a misunderstanding. The Bill pro 

 posed in substance to allow localities to tax them 

 selves for purposes of technical education on the 

 condition that any scheme for such purpose should 

 be submitted to the Science and Art Department, 

 and declared by that department to be in accord 

 ance with the intention of the Legislature. 



A cry was raised that the Bill proposed to throw 

 technical education into the hands of the Science 

 and Art Department. But, in reality, no power 

 of initiation, nor even of meddling with details, 

 was given to that Department the sole function 

 of which was to decide whether any plan proposed 

 did or did not come within the limits of " tech 

 nical education." The necessity for such control, 

 somewhere, is obvious. No legislature, certainly 

 not ours, is likely to grant the power of self-taxa 

 tion without setting limits to that power in some 

 way ; and it would neither have been practicable 

 to devise a legal definition of technical education, 

 nor commendable to leave the question to the 

 Auditor-General, to be fought out in the law-courts. 

 The only alternative was to leave the decision to 

 an appropriate State authority. If it is asked, 

 what is the need of such control if the people of 



