The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prævalbit. MONDAY DECEMBER, 21, 1885.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1357, 21 December 1885, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prævalbit. MONDAY DECEMBER, 21, 1885.

Hitherto New Zealand has been spared that most horrible of human maladies —hydropfiobia. So little is known of the nature and history of this terrible disease, that scientists have made no attempt to account for its non-appearance in this hemisphere, but it is a fact that we have no guarantee that the scourge will not, sooner or later, make its appearance here. In England and France, where dogs are as much companions of men as they are in this colony, hydrophobia claims a considerable number of victims yearly, and as the disease, declared incurable by medical men, is accompanied by most painful and revolting symptoms, it is naturally held in the greatest abhorrence. it is not surprising, therefore, that the discovery of a cure lor this long dreaded disease should be hailed with wide-spread satisfaction. M. Pasteur, an eminent Parisian physiologist, claims to have discovered the cure —he alleges that he has found the hydrophobic virus, inoculation with which is not only a means of preventing the disease among dogs, but a remedy, if taken in time, for hydrophobia in those who have been bitten. At a meeting of the Academy of Medicine, held in Paris on October 27 last, M. Pasteur detailed the results of a number of experiments he had conducted during the course of his investigations. He established, beyond a doubt, by the independent testimony of the celebrated Dr Vulpiar and a professor of the School of Medicine, that three cases of hydrophobia, in human beings, had actually been cured. This is a remark able medical triumph, a triumph we shall be apt to undervalue in these colonies, but one that should enshrine the name oi M. Pasteur amongst those of the foremost discovers of the age.

The organ described by phrenologists as veneration is conspicuous by ijts abscene from the cranium of the average colonists. In Europe a titled personage or a member of any national legislature is regarded with the utmost deferenefe, aifd in Aroftfca W* ifi&UtiQfe of

indifference to rank is rapidly giving way to an unmistakable appreciation of the aristocracy. But in New Zealand a live Duke attracts less attention than a prominent racehorse or a successful cricketer, and a member of our Parliament, if nothing more than a member of Parliament, is regarded with a satis; Jroid which almost amounts to contempt. This popular insensibility to the consequence of our legislators is frequently attributed to their own exhibitions of political rancour and tur>moil. It is true, as we observed in our last issue, that our politicians delight in misrepresenting one another, but in this respect they are not one whit behind Imperial statesmen. Exempli gratia. At a Liberal meeting held at Shanklin on October 15, Sir Barrington Simeon stated that Lord Salisbury and Sir Michael Hidcs-Beach had had a conference with Mr Parnell in the smokingroom of the House of Commons, had smoked their cigars, and drunk their brandy-and-water together, and had agreed to drop the Crimes Act, so securing the Irish vote in Parliament. This, Sir Barrington assured his hearers, he had from an eye witness. A correspondent called the attention of Lord -Salisbury to these allegations, and the English Premier directed the following reply:—

Foreign Office, October 23, 1885. Sir, —In reply to your letter of the 17th inst I am desired by Lord Salisbury to say —first, that he has never smoked ; second, that he has never been in the smoking-room of the House of Commons ; third, that he has never spoken to Mr Parnell, and, as far as he knows, has never seen him ; fourth, that he certainly had no compact with him. Therefore, the statements referred to in your letter as having been made by Sir Barrington Simeon on these subjects are downright untruths. I am yours, faithfully, Henry Manners.

Sir M. Hicks-Beach has also given the statement an unqualified denial, and the situation is quite equal to anything of the description we have yet seen in this country.

A very worthy man, visiting the abode of a professing Christian lady, ventured to observe that Cleanliness was next to Godliness. The lady replied, “I thank the Lord I do not find that in my Bible or feel myself under any such obligation." There are very many persons in Ashburton who appear to have looked no farther than this poor ignorant woman into their Bibles. The physiology of Moses is not yet surpassed, and although there is, ot course, much in his books incomprehensible to us, and inapplicable to a very different climate and period, it is astonishing that Christians should pay so little heed to the general spirit and purport of these books so far as they refer to purity of life, sanitary regulations, etc. We are almost ashamed to write on this subject again, and we are afraid to say how many times we have made special reference to the filth of Ashburton. But we are impressed by the gravity of the question. Casualties and accidents will happen to the wisest, but upon general results from certain conditions we may surely reckon. The stone thrown into the water we know will sink, and the bubble will rise. Two and two make four, and we know that in certain conditions human life cannot thrive. These conditions abound in Ashburton, fever is already rampant in the town, and we richly deserve any amount of affliction that may befall us. We fly in the face of Nature, and then call her a stepmother. No wonder she sometimes acts the part of the traditionally austere mother-in-law.

The Canterbury Jockey Club is framing new rules, and, we gather from a newspaper report, proposes to exercise some control over the numerous country meetings held throughout the provincial district. To a certain extent we approve of this proposal. Racing has made prodigious, though, perhaps, not very healthy, development through out the length and breadth of New Zealand. Meetings are sometimes managed by gentlemen—possibly excellent sportsmen —who have no conception of the depths of human depravity, nor any idea of the difficulties and dangers connected with the business of a race committee. To these gentlemen the judicious supervision and assistance of the Metropolitan Club may be of inestimable value. One Club, too, should undertake the general enforcement of disqualifications, fines and other penalties, the framing of racing and totalisator rules, and merely gambling and “public-house” meetings should be surpressed. But, we are given to understand, the Canterbury Club will demand that all country programmes shall be submitted to its Committee previous to publication. This proposal is preposterous. Imagine the Ashburton Club, which certainly knows its own business best and has been quite as well managed as tne Metropolitan Club, relegating all its functions to an outside authority. We do not know of any precedent for such a state of things. The English Jockey Club, it is true, demands, under pain of perpetual disqualification to competing horses, that all race meetings in Great Britain shall be held under its rules, and one of these rules provides that no meeting shall be held unless the added money be at least L3OO per day, but even that autocratic power does not presume to demand the submission of programmes. We hope, in the interests of sport, that the Canterbury Club will not attempt to wield an authority, which it has not the power to enforce.

There is a good story told of an old woman who lived in a Lincolnshire village. The clergyman of the parish meeting her one day, took advantage of the opportunity to entreat her to beware of the devil, '• who,” he said, “ will always put evil thoughts into people’s heads whenever he has a chance.” “ Aw, yes, sir,” said the old woman, “ I’m sure he will, for it’s his duty so to doj” upon which the clergyman could only say, “ Go home, you stupid old woman, what’s the use of talking to you,” But was the old woman so stupid? We think not. Her mind was naturally possessed with the impression that where there is an existence tnerc may be supposed to be some motive power. The clergyman had his answer from un fort esprit that hud never been ruined by contact with fashionable inanities.