The Akaroa Mail. FRIDAY, MAY 28.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 4, Issue 398, 28 May 1880, Page 2

The Akaroa Mail. FRIDAY, MAY 28.

Roma locuta, causa fixita. The Premier has spoken, unci judging from the tone he has assumed, it seems there should at once be an end of all discussion. We consider that, in many respects, the speech delivered a week ago by the Hon. John Hall will be very damaging to his political reputation. In the first place, it came too late. A member of the House, as such, may address his constituents when and how he chooses, and if he fails tv do so at till, it is an allair entirely between him and them. But with a Minister of the Crown, and especially with the Premier of the Colony, the case is widely different. In such a case the country has a right to expect, and will expect, some declaration of policy—some explanation of the course adopted by the Government, and some avowal of the measures proposed to be introduced. And those statements should be made in time to enable them to be discussed—not just a few days before the opening uf the session. Of course, Mr Hall considers lie has answered this objection by the use of one or two slangy and abusive epithets. He calls such a doctrine " transparent rubbish," and its practice " stump oratory." But however telling such a terse method of disposing of an awkward question may be, however promptly it may elicit "cheers" from an admiring auditory, the question still remains whether it is thoroughly satisfactory in an argumentative point of view—whether, after a.l, there is not something in the opinion expressed by ■Sir George Grey that those who aspire to rule their felloe-men should place, themselves! in direct communication with them. The fact is that, though Mr Hall lins been driven by the force of circumstances to introduce and pass a measure whicli will have- the cll'ect of conferring tlte franchise on almost every man. in tiie community, he yet betrays the greatest eontoinpt for the ' oi polloi' —for those who assemble- in i£ a crowded i Oddfellows' Hall in as j distinguished :::.:i; v iwo Jl3 '■■ saw bolore him " —the select and bucolic j Jew who had gathered in tho Lec.ston j Public Hall. '

But not only lias the Hon. John Hall ignored the reasonable, expectations of the country by not making his statement in time—he also appears to us to have quite mistaken his position as Premier, ami what was to be expected of him in that capacity. It is the legitimate position of an Opposition to criticise the personality and the policy of a Government. But from a Minister wo expect something totally different. We expect some positive statement of principles and policy, including answers to objections and criticisms, if necessary, but we do not expect the main burden of such a statement to be an attack on a political opponent. Now, the Premier appears to have overlooked this vital distinction, and we find that, after dealing with a few local matters, a column and a-half of the Times is devoted to an attack on Sir George Grey. Of the most virulent portion of that attack we shall speak further on, but we cannot forbear quoting a few lines here as exemplifying the utterly false position taken up by the Premier, Mr Hall says :— " Having referred to what jis in that speech, I wish to call your attention to some remarkable omissions from it, and the first is this. Here we have a gentleman addressing large bodies of men on the politics of the day, and making hardly any mention of the most important question which fills men's minds, or ought to fill them at the present time—l mean the exceedingly difficult financial position of the Colony, what we ought to do, and what is our duty to the country at the present moment; but nothing whatever is said as to our financial difficulties or the steps to be taken to extricate us from them. I think it is a most remarkable and unfortunate omission." Now tliis betrays a total misconception of the relative positions of the Government and the Opposition. It is not for the latter to enunciate a definite policy. In other words, they are by no means bound to " show their hand," and perhaps have the most salient parts of their policy appropriated by the Government. There has been too much of this filching of ideas from political opponents, and Mr Hall and his colleagues have been by no means guiltless in this respect.

But not only does the Premier take up a false position and criticise instead of merely replying to criticism, but in doing so ho uses most unwarrantable language—language more fit for a public house rowdy than for a gentleman and a statesman—language which, even if within the lines of fact, would still be unjustifiable. Sir George Grey complains that hiw private telegrams were tampered with by the Minister of the day to find out whether there was anything in them to raise a feeling against him. This statement Mr Hall characterises as a deliberate falsehood, and repeats the offensive words. Now, apart from the propriety of the language, let us see whether the circumstances justify such an assertion. Here is the Premier's own account of what took place prior to the telegrams being laid upon the table :—

" The inetnber for Cheviot, in conse" quence of suspicions wlricli had been entertained that the late Government had [ been using the telegraph for electioneering purposes, asked whether the Government, of which I was a member, would ascertain whether that had boon so, and if any telegrams had been sent as public messages whicli were really private ones, they should be laid before Parliament. After consultation, we decided that they should. I made the enquiry, and the answer was that there were a considerable number. Before laying thorn on the table, I took the precaution of going through them, to see if any private telegrams were improperly included. I found thai one or two were of a private character, and they were 2>ut on one side." Here we have the astounding admission—after such a sweeping assertion as that just referred to —that Mr Hall did use his authority as Minister to have certain telegrams sent up to his office, on going through which he admits that " lie found one or two which were of a private character." Mr Hall goes on to say: — "The question was referred to a Selec* Committee, on the motion of tho leader of the Opposition. That Committee took evidence, and reported that they were public telegrams, and had been properly produced. I ask you whether that being a fact, which no one can deny, the statement in Christchirruli was not most discreditable to any public man ? " This statement we are told wns received with " applause." The Premier assumed that his autlieuce had probably forgotten all about this miserable telegram scandal, or he would never have dared to make sucli a disingenuous statement, while passing such a sweeping condemnation on another public man. What the Committee did report was that the telegrams were produced "in accordance with the law, with the exception of two." They also stated that five others had been originally sent and paid for as private telegrams, and they unanimously recommended that those ones which they had sealed up should g t again be laid on the table of tho House.

It will thus be seen (1) That the Premier did find some private telegrams among those sent up to him in consequence of his orders. (2) TJiat the Uoiumittce found some more private ones among those which had been laid upon the table of tin; House, some of which had boon made public before the enquiry commenced, {3} That the committee expresses no opinion as to the " propriety " of the production ever of the remainder, but contented themselves ! with ai'lirmiuy- that their production was ! within the law. If .A gets hold at a ' k-ti'.ii' oL' i> y> oi.her.vi.se than by rJiof't, ho .' can !!:ai. L ' I 1.;,:; <;{' :t i.'.o U miles' 111' whlivd'. ./.'crglvii.^ , t::0 |-iU'. Vv'ivji.liU' 1:0 duet! so "' pio[Oijy : or not. koiuc i'.i,-it- t idkuis people may be inclined to doubt.

Mr Hall having such a hatred of unveraoity, ought also to have put his readers in full possession of the facts of the case by informing them that the report exculpating the Government from law breaking was only carried by a majority of four to three in the Committee—that Dr. Lemon, the Manager of Telegraphs, was decidedly of opinion that the production of any of the telegrams was illegal, and that three out of seven members of the Committee voted for a report concluding as follows :— " That accordingly, in the opinion of the Committee, the production of all the telegrams in question was in violation of the law." On the whole, we cannot help thinking that the Premier has not increased his reputation by his Leeston speech. Curses are said to resemble chickens in that they come home to roost, and we believe the same may be said of reckless and unfounded charges such as the one flung with such virulence at the head of probably the most heartily admired and most cordially detested man in New Zealand—Sir George Grey.

We all know the adage about new brooms. Cr Henning seems determined to prove himself one of the newest of the new. Before his recent re-advance-ment to senatorial honors he had determined that his sweeping powers should be exercised in regard to the auditors. They were to be swept away to make room for two nominees of his own. A brother Councillor who happened to be a supporter of one of the former auditors was accused of most unworthy motives, and it was carefully explained that all must support Cr Henning's nominations or be denounced as traitors to the State. But Cr Henning is not content with having auditors suitable to his taste, a clerk of whom he can approve, and a returning officer who will assist him in disarming opposition, but he must needs also take to purging the Council. Rumor hath it that he has sworn an information against one of the Councillors, seeking to recover heavy penalties for an alleged breach of the Municipal Corporations Act. It is, of course, a mere coincidence that the Councillor in question happens not to be a supporter of Cr Henning's nominees as auditors. This could not possibly be supposed to influence Cr Henning, but the fact remains that the Councillor informed against, if guilty at all, has been equally guilty for over twelve months, that Cr Henning has sat at the same table with him, and has hitherto raised no objection to his presence, so that his newborn zeal must needs give rise to a certain amount of conjecture as to motive. Of course it would be worse than useless to point out to a person so self-opinionated that such a step conies at least with a very bad grace from a member of the Council —that the Councillor to be proceeded against was elected without opposition, and that if the ratepayers are satisfied it betrays a great want of — well, delicacy for a member of the local body to attempt to alter the construction of that body, or to dictate to the ratepayers as to who shall and who shall not be his colleagues.