The Evening Star. TUESDAY, MAY 30, 1876.

Evening Star, Issue 4136, 30 May 1876, Page 2

The Evening Star. TUESDAY, MAY 30, 1876.

The man who invented hats little knew the machinery he was providing the world with. A few years t ago there was a crusade against them. Bell toppers wore denounced as disr fignr'ements, after the fashion of ill-designed chimney-pots; and all sorts hf unsightly substitutes, varying in proportions and ugliness from a tarred canvas sou’-wester to a distorted American breed of a gigantic peaked indented billycock. No matter —the want of a hat of some sort was felt, and felt supplied it. _ Innocent people not conversant with the various phases of human life imagine that hats are only useful as brain covers. Did they but know all that passes in cdinmitt£e rooms, jury retiring-rooms, meetings of Municipal Works Committees, and even parliamentary Committees, they would learn that hats arc often used to cover the want of brains. We have heard stories of even special juries determining the difference between five hunderd and a thousand pounds damages by means of a hat, and of common juries deciding between “ guilty and hot guilty ” by a like process. We .quite agree that there are case* in which bats may be very

advantageously weed as ballot-boxes, for on many occasions opinions may be fairly expressed by secretlvoting with advantage to the-peace and well-being of society. Where a man is not responsible to his fellow man for his conduct, and where by conscientious exercise of his vote offence might needlessly , ®® P eD i or where he might ih consequence; of his vote risk bringing trouble ttptfn him-' the ehield, of the, ballot is righteously thrown oyer -him,; and the hat. comes in handy as, ja ballot-box. , Such .instances ar& hOt rare in. humshi experience, amteonaeouently hats are in frequent requisition. We do not object to the legitimate use of the hat in any shape. Let the itinerant showman or organ-grinder send it round to collect the coppers—he can pocket his earnings, coyer ms head, make , and--depart. Let the thirsty boy dip his hat in the limpid stream and drink from his improvised basin • his hair will be none the worse for a „ we tting. Let the secretary of a club collect the votes that will admit or blackball a proposed member in his hat. Ballot is the rule, and not even a club has a right to know all the reasons that influence individual members in' their votes. It Say be inconvenient to the excluded one—it may, even be a stab in the dark—but he know’s ■ the risk he runs on being proposed, and those who inflict the injury alone are guilty,, of the injustice—he is none the worse esteemed by his true friends in consequence. Very worthy people have enemies who are unworthy the exercise of the power of exclusion, but it is very seldom that an honorable man will use it under such cicumstances. Bad as many good men say the world is, British gentlemen scorn secret revenge—they are too good for that: so that practically the, ballot works well in most cases 1 where it is lawful to use the hat. But hats are liable to be abused as well as used. In public meetings or clubs misuse seldoih happens. A resolution is proposed, and by general consent the test of voting “aye ,J or “nay” is remitted to the ballot. Those who vote would in all probability have voted just in the same way nad' their names been recorded;but acting for themselves alone, and not responsible to others, all bitterness and heart-burning are avoided by the use of the hat. The work is better and more satisfactorily done. It is however quite a different matter when the hat is used ih cases where responsibility rests. For instance, on a jury it is quite inexcusable to determine a verdict by chance. Every juryman is boundtoopeniy express his opinion, and, where it differs widely from the restj : conscientiously to abide by it, although at the risk of not arriving at a verdict. The hat has no business there. Neither is it admissible in Municipal Works’ Coihmittees, although we are credibly informed it has fonnd its way among them. The latest rumor is that some tenders were disposed of by means of a hat, although one worthy Councillor steadfastly opposed the innovation. It seems that two tenders were sent in for some work, and that by a strange coincidence'the two amounts were exactly the same. Wo grant that had there been no qualifying circumstances, the; Works Committee would have been placed in a dilemma, which could only have -been fairly • met by informing ■ the tenderers' of the Circumstance and 'attlowihg them to divide the work, or, to determine on some equitable ground between themselves the: terms on which one ■or the other should' execute it. The hat between them would have been a fair and legitimate means* of arriving at a decision. But the Works Committee did not give them that option. They had hats of their own, and chose to have a game of quasi chance in Committee. That is, they shirked: the responsibility of openly deciding. They might have voted openly amongst themselves, and if they closed the contract they ought to have done so, because those who entrusted', them with the power to enter into contracts expect them to give a reason for preferring one tenderer to another. It is not enough to say “we had no preference and therefore left it to chance.” Chance, even could this flimsy expedient be called chance, is not|a reason for. anything; but is a name for circumstances for which no reason- can be given, and should never be resorted to where conduct is to be explained. We know neither the names of the tenderers nor the committee. The last we have heard, as a matter «f course, but have forgotten. With us the condemnation is not of men but of a substitute for principle, and no matter who the Councillors are who use the hat where brains and conscience should decide, we unhesitatingly say they evince that they are unfit for their position. But, as the story comes to 1 us, there was <pute room for a good reason for giving the contract to the man who, under cover of the hat, was refused. We 'Ure informed that the contractor who obtained the contiact had a quantity of work on hand which he had agreed to complete some time ago, but which he is not likely to finish for several weeks—his work is behind time. On the other hand, the tenderer refused had but little work on hand, had kept his contract time, and fulfilled his engagements very satisfactorily. Surely there is not even the shadow of an excuse for the use of a hat, if those statements are true. The. City Council will, we trust, require explanation, of the Works Committee, and we shall be glad to find we have been misinformed. Should' our information prove true, the ratepayers ought hot to forget the “hat” when next called to vote for or against those who have abused it.