BLUNDERS OF THE LATE SESSION.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2348, 11 October 1870, Page 2

BLUNDERS OF THE LATE SESSION.

To the Editor of the Evening Star. Sir, —As your morning contemporary has of late betrayed so very keen an eye for the detection of so many of the so-called • ‘ ‘ extraordinary blunders in recent legislation,” and moreover manifested bo very patriotic

an anxiety to parade them before the eye of the world as one among the many things that a wellwiaber of the colony may proclaim to its detriment, I was somewhat surprised on Saturday morning to find that he was himself guilty of a “ blunder,” certainly as “extraordinary,” if not more so than any of those lie has recently taken so much pains to expose. I had fully expected that this (Monday) morning’s issue would have contained a correction, as it was only charitable to conclude that during the interval ho would surely find some kind friend or another who would compassionately enlighten him, just a little, about those particular portions of the “recent legislation” that moeo especially concern and affect the interests of his own constituents and supporters. This however has evidently not been the case, or he would have detected that the new “Hoad Boards Ordinance,” which he gravely tells his readers “is shortly to come into force.” and from the operation of which he seems sanguine certain beneficial results are to accrue, was by its own express provisions made dependent upon the sanction of the General Assembly, and that the “ Otago lload Boards Ordinance Validation Bill,” though it passed the Lower Bouse was thrown out by the Upper House, and as a natural consequence the Ordinance in the meantime has fallen to the ground. The “blunder” above referred to is the more “extraordinary,” because in addition to the announcement of the fact by your contemporary’s “ own correspondent” at the time, a report of Mr Macandrew’s address to his constituents, which appeared in your contemporary’s own columns on Monday, the 3rd inst., contains the following :—“He had also introduced the Otago Road Boards Validation Act, the object of which was to validate an Act passed during last session of the Provincial Council, and consolidate the existing Koad Boards, reducing their number from 105 to 33, confei'ring borrowing powers, &c. The Bill passed through the Bouse of Representatives, but was thrown out in the Legislative Council. The Bill, ho I bought, was a good one, and hoped it would meet with more success when next attempted to be passed.” Again, in your contemporary’s issue of September 30, there is an official statement of the “Business of the lato session,” rejoicing in all the prominence of large caps., with a sub-head in small caps., as follows “ List of Bills Dropped, or otherwise disposed of”; aunder this latter head I find the words—“Otago Road Boards Ordinance Validation.” Now, sir, I can excuse your contemporary for not being particularly well up in the “recent legislation,” of which, by the way, he writes so glibly; but that he should write a leading article in utter ignorance of a fact set forth by telegrams, correspondents’ letters, reports, &e , that have appeared in his own columns, I had till now thought to bo too great a “blunder” even for the Dally Times to be guilty of. Yours, &c., A Reader of Hansard. Oct. 10th, 1870.

To the Editor of the Evening Star, Sir—Your corrcspni lent “ Pair Play,” in your last issue, asks leave to correct au “error ” into which lie alleges I have fallen in ray “ animadversions on the actions of the Presbytery.” Like many other critics, he either is ignorant on the subject of which he writes, or he wilfullj misrepresents the case to serve his own ends; or more probably the ends of those for whom he is acting. He knows very well, or at least ought to have known before he attempted to write on the subject, that every charge against Mr Scrirageour has already been fully investigated. Some of these were examined by the Presbytery themselves, and were immediately visited with cmdign punishment. These, therefore, are what “ Fair Play ” calls, “ dispoied of,” and cannot be .again made subjects of “investigation.” The others were examined by a select committee of the Presbytery appointed for that special purpose, of which committee his most bitter enemies in the Presbytery were members ; and that committee, after full and careful examination, recommended unanimously “that there should be no further judicial investigation in this case.” These, therefore, are also “disposed of,” as that report was accepted by the Presbytery without any objection. Where then I ask were the grounds for delay, or for not at once sustaining the call when laid on the table, unless what “Fair Play ” calls '‘sinister” motives were at work. Again, will “ Fair Play ”or his friends tell us upon what principle of Presbyterian polity the protest of Mr M'Naughton was rejected by the Presbytery? It has ever been regarded as one of the chief beauties of that system, that anyone feeling aggrieved by a sentence of an inferior C'ourt, has the right of appeal to the higher Court for redress But no say those guardians of the people’s rights, who rule here, we cannot tolerate anything of that Hiud. And whyJpjjt because they knew right well that thereby theiv whole deep laid scheme would have been th.warted, and themselves anil their devices laid open to view. Once more, why was a different course adapted in regard to the call from St Andrew’s, from that which was followed in the cdl to the same person from Palmerston ? In the latter case, the call was immediately sustained, and Mr Scrimgeour was at once sent for, and asked whether he accepted it PF not, and with him the decision of the matter lay. But not so with St, Andrew’s, an opposition had been got up there, of which the less said the better ; thirty are preferred to three hundred, the call is cast aside, and not even an appeal against the decision is allowed. Such is the course advocated by “Fair Play.” What a mis'.miner ! The congregation have man* fully stuck together during the whole course of their difficult and protracted struggle, and just at the moment when they expected to be again settled in peace and prosperity, their hopes are suddenly blasted, and they are once more cast adrift to sink or swim as they best can. Said I not well, that t.he Presbytery of Dunedin had perpetrated another deed of injustice and cruelty ou the cong egaiion of St. Andrew’s church. Yours, &c , X.X. Dune lin, October 10, 1870.