OUR SUPERINTENDENT AND HIS POLITICS.

Auckland Examiner, Volume 1, Issue 40, 17 September 1857, Page 3

OUR SUPERINTENDENT AND HIS POLITICS.

He who fabled that truth lay hid at the bottom of a well may have meant merely to satirise those who think truth easy to find. If such was his fneaning we cannot sav his fable transgressed against fact; for no matter what amount of natural antitude.ur acquired knowledge we bring to the work, our means of getting at truth as it is in things, are humiliatingly meagre. Hence that common proneness to err which dogmatic writers seem practically disregardful of. Not having felt, or perhaps upon principle keeping out of view, the doubts and difficulties which make wiser men modest, he pronounces his mere opinions us if they were divine oracles. A student who deals with the sciences we call fixed, or established, may dogmatize in clover, but he who dogmatizes on utßer sciences should prepare to take it easy under conditions far from agreable. Matters of fiu-t need no dogmatism to bolster them, up, and matters of opinion derive no weight from the positiveness of him who enunciates them. Did publicists, and men of letters generally,, at all times keep in view the distinction Between matters of clear fact and matters of mere opinion it is probable there would be more of practical wisdom as well as sound knowledge in our “ lower world.” Opinions with regard to the fitness of John Williamson to rule over a people who deem themselves enlightened are various ; but facts are not various. They contradict not each other or themselves. 1 am, however, unable to go all the way with a fine poet who in the style of his country tells us : — Facts are chiels that winna ding And eanna be disputed. For so strange is human pride, and so measureless human disposition to impose upon itself that facts clear as clearest noon-dsy-uun are not only disputed but denied. A few months since I charged upon Superintendent Williamson the dirty trick of falsifying his promise to carry on Government without party feeling, and in a spirit that would rise superior to the vulgar animus that had been ascribed to him, by getting rid of Progress officials on purpose to make room for his own supporters. Amongst other cases adduced in support of my charge was the case of McCabe, formerly clerk t» the Provincial Accountant., and also Emigration A'l-ent. 1 said he had been dismissed. 1 said he had been dismissed for the same reason that so many others had been dismissed. Had he, or they, been dismissed because they were inefficient public officers, or because while acting under the Provincial Government they were intrigueing against it, by me no complaint would have been mace —no objection raised, 1 think the Superintendent is justified in the dismissal of public servants either on the ground of their proved incompeqency, or on the ground of their treacherous opposition to his Government. But no charge of any kind was made against McCabe. Ha was discharged, as thev say in Law Courts, without the slightest stain upon his character. I believe, however, it was intimated to him that his salary was an object with the Provincial Government; that they must retrench, and cheapen, and otherwise reform the mode of managing public I business. Thus was McCabe got rid of; and though soon after appointed to da surveyor duty in the bush, Superintendent Wiliiamson cannot take credit on that account— for the sufficient reason that he had nothing whatever to do with it. Such was the fact. Bat the fact was denied. If it be again denied, I wiil “specify” the person who really did make the appointment, and also why he made it. Now come two questions which press for consideration. One question is—Did Superintendent Williamson dismiss McCabe upon false pretences ? The other question is—Did Superintendent Williamson DiMINISH THE COST OP HIS GOVERNMENT BY GETTING RID OF McCabe ? I can answer both questions, and will begin with the first. At this moment the place of McCabe is filled bv a Mr. O’Rourke, the friend of a Mr. Taylor, who was appointed to a nice picking in shape of a £3OO per annum School Inspectorship. McCabe was dismissed because not wanted. O'Rourke was appointed to fill his place. McCabe who received two hundred pounds per annum was bowed out of office for the ostensible purpose of reducing Provincial Government expenditure. That Government was resolvsd to economize, and " uhamo the

Progress rogues 1 ’ by realizing the Cheap John idea in every public department- Nothing was alleged in sense opposed to McCabe personally. The people who sent him to right about rested not his dismissal on grounds of unfitness, or unwillingness, or both, to perform the duties of his office. No, I repeat it, he was dismissed for no other given reason than that the Provincial Government must economize, and that his services could be dispensed with. Well, McCabe was got rid of—manosuvered out of his place which for a season was allowed to remain vacant. But only for a season. When it might fairly be presumed that McCabe’s dismissal would tie forgotten by a pnblio rather short memoried O’Rourke, with a “ wage" of two hundred and fifty pounds is silently shipped into the snug billet. I know not npon what principle except the principle of partisan favoritism which Superintendent Williamson disclaims. Mr answer to-the second question will put instill clearer light what I have said with regard to the first. It may be supposed that a saving was effected by the dismissal of McCabe; that our economical Superintendent wanted a Provincial Accountant's clerk who would do public work ar, a cheaper though, peraaps, nastier rate than McCabe. But what wiil bo public astonishment when it is made to see that while McCaoe received £2OO a-year for his services, O’Rourke is quartered upon us to the turn of £250 a-year. Yes, precisely what O'Rourke is to be paid £250 a-year for doing, McCabe was competent, and 1 dare affirm quite willing, to do for £2OO a-year. Loudon "linen-draper assistants have been known to assure lady customers that they were able to oblige them with ribbons, or other articles, at less than they cost, because they sold such immense quantities of them. And 1 remember being pirtieularly amused by a clever retailer of oranges, who assured me that she was compensated for the loss she sustained by the sate of each particular orange in the extraordinary demand for oranges. Plase yer honor 1 lose by every one ; but then. I sells so many of them. By a like ingenuous process.of reasoning it may be shown that wben Superintendent Williamson got ria of two hundred per annum McCabe, and put in bis place two hundred and fifty per annum O’Rourke, the public was a gainer by the transaction. Our “ cheap” Superintendent taking his cue from “cheap” London linen-draper assistants, or perhaps some cheap Milesian purveyor of oranges might say—l KNOW THAT THE PROVINCIAL MONEY-CHEST MAT SUFFER IN I’ARTICULAR CASES SUCH AS O’ItOURKB’S, BUT THEN SINCE I CAME INTO OFFICE THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY OF THEM, AND THAT MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE. PUBLICOLA.