The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1887. BACKING HIS OPINION.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1454, 12 January 1887, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1887. BACKING HIS OPINION.

"Bet'cher a bob it is!" sounds appropriate enough from the mouth of a hoodlum by way of a challenge to the experimentuw cruris for the final settlement of a disputed question of pitch and toss, but there appears to us to be something ludicrously comical m a prominent statesman proposing to back his opinions, or rather say the soundness of his argument m support of those opinions, by the stake ofa^io note. And yet that it would seem is what the Colonial Treasurer proposes. Some weeks ago, it will be remembered, Sir Julius Yogel delivered an address at the Lyceum, Dunedin, on the subject of Protection to Local Industries, and we arejree to say that, m our opinion, ne put the case from his point of view exceedingly well. It is not unnatural, therefore, that he should have felt disappointed at the severe criticism which that deliverance encountered, and we aie not surprised that he should have felt a little annoyed at the tone which, as towards himself, some of his critics adopted. But his proposal to confound his enemies by a wager of ;£io to nothing is surely the result of that annoyance, and has not been dictated by his calmer judgment. Indeed, the very remarks which preface his challenge, m which he writes " So important do I think it to come to close quarters and to get rid of all the rubbish of personal invective, distortion of argument, and copybook generalisation, that I am prepared to abide by the following off.;r " — indicate the correctness of our view that the challenge itself is the ouicome of temporary and not wholly unjustifiable irritation. But the challenge is a mistake for all that — rather, we might say, bocause of that. For although we have the highest of all authority that "an oath for confirmation is the end of all strife," there is no* authority either scriptural or secular for the attestation of truth by the issue of a wager. And indeed the very terms of the challenge are such as to render the result were it taken up of very little value. It reads " If the Times or Star (or they may join together if they like) will on one column fairly represent my arguments and on another answer or refute them to the satisfaction of an impartial and competent judge, I will give ;£io to thaf worthy old institution, the Benevolent Institution of Duoedin." Now if the interminable Protection versus Freetradc controversy could be finally and absotufcely settled by any such means it would be well worth while staking, not jQio, nor even but hundreds of thousands on the issue, as an authoritative and conclusive ascertainment of the value of the widoly differing theories on the subject would be cheap at almost any figure ; but the award of a judg--, however able and impartial, as j to the relative force of certain particular arguments advanced by Sir Julius Yogel and of certaii counter-arguments advanced by th? Dunedin Times and Star, will absolutely prove nothing at all as to the relative merit 3 of a Freetrade and a Protective policy. For it is not, we presume, for a moment contended thai either Sir Julius Yogel has said all that can be said for the one or that the Times and Stat have said or will say all that can be said for the other, or thM either has stated the case m the best possible way. And if that be so, then, whether Sir Julius win or lose, the question as between Freetrader and Protectionists will still remain ab debatable as ever. Moreover, as is pointed out by a Dunedin exchange, if neither a Freetrader nor a Protectionist is to be the judge m this curious competition how is it possible to find a capable judge at all — for surely every educated man has some opinion on the question, either one way or the other. The fact is, the whole business is a mistake and is another proof oi thjs old Latin proverb, Nemo mortaUutil omnibifs horis sapit. Everybody, however wise, does a eilly thing sometimes, and Sir Julius 1 challenge is jus one of those silly things. No doub> he is by this time convinced of this, himself' Happily; he is not likely to

repeat ie, nor are our public men likely 1.0 be led away by the fascination of the precedent. Were it otherwise, we might oerhaps arrive at a state of things when he policy of the State would be decided by the ability of one set of politicians to " go a pound better " than the ; r opponents; and legislative and political proposals would be " pooled " on the principle of " a bob m and the winner shouts."