THE LATE MURDER CASE.

Globe, Volume III, Issue 284, 10 May 1875, Page 3

THE LATE MURDER CASE.

To the Editor of the Globe. Sir, —Now that the extreme penalty of the law has been carried into effect upon the murderer Mercer, I shall be g*d if you will permit me a small space in your columns, in order that I may call the attention of the public to a matter which they in all probabilitj may have inadvertently overlooked. I do not think I can do better, in order to introduce the subject to your readers, than ask you to publish the following extract from the Auckland Weekly Herald :

“The oft-qUoted truism that ‘murder will out ’ never perhaps received a truer verification than it is likely to do in the horrible case of murder committed on Sunday last at Lyttelton, A man named Mercer, a sailor, was arrested upon Monday last, upon a charge of wilfully destroying property on board the schooner Canterbury, upon which vessel he had been employed, and on searching his swag a pair of blood-stained trousers was discovered by the police, as also a jacket in the same condition. But the most extraordinary part of the stoiy remains to be told. Upon an examination of the man’s hands and knees, a number of gorse bush thorns were discovered imbedded in the skin, and these upon examination by a microscope proved to be similar to the thorns of the gorse bushes in which the body of the child was discovered. The murder is a most diabolical one, but justice would speedily appear to be upon the track. Whoever the officer was that conceived the idea of comparing the thorns in Mercer’s hand with those in the gorse bush, whether Mercer be found guilty of the murder or not, he deserves some more substantial recognition of his astuteness than can be conveyed in mere complimentary phrases. If it be an officer of the police who originated the idea, he richly merits promotion and a pecuniary reward.”

To say that I entirely concur in the latter •portion of the extract would, be superfluous, ; and I would confidently hope that the of Lyttelton, first, and the Christ•church public, afterwards, will see their way ito recognise the services rendered by the -police in the detection of this most foul murder. The paragraph above quoted speaks for itself, and it will prove the appreciation of the services rendered on this occasion, if the officer, or officers, above referred to, are presented by the public with a special mark of their sense of the keen and astute manner in which they followed up their case, and secured the conviction of a man, whom it would have been a curse to have let loose amongst the society whose laws he had so grievously outraged. There is nothing that can tend more to accelerate the detection of crime, than a proper appreciation of services rendered in such a case as Mercer’s. A suitable reward in such a case is not thrown away. It is an incentive to an officer to keep up his reputation, and urges on younger members of the force to endeavour to do so likewise. In England, and in Australia, the officers having charge of such a case as Mercer’s would most undoubtedly be ; substantially rewarded. Why not in New Zealand ? I sincerely trust that I need only throw out the hint, and then leave it in the hands of a generous public, who are always ready to appreciate worth in a public servant, whenever their attention is called to it. I have written the above letter, trusting you will publish it, because I am of opinion that the officers who brought John Mercer to the gallows are deserving of more than promotion or “tall talk,” and I, for one, shall not be backward in throwing in my mite when called upon to do so. Yours, &c, W. M. Lyttelton, May Bth, 1875. THE ESTIMATES IN CONNECTION WITH THE WANTS OF THE MUNICIPALITIES. To the Editor of the Globe. glß ( —ln the leading article in the Press of Saturday on Dr, Turnbull’s remarks in the Provincial Counci, and his letter published later, that paper advises that gentleman to move that the capitation grant, or an amount similar, be paid over directly to the people who contribute it. With this, sir, I entirely agree. I have advocated it for some time past, on the grounds that the permanent charges, viz. interest and sinking funds on provincial loans, should be a first charge on the land fund of the province. . , , , . , . At present the capitation grant (which is a small return of the large amount paid by population in the shape of Customs’ revenue) is retained by the General Government to pay the charges on the loans of the province, simply as a matter of convenience in keeping the accounts. The two items are nevertheless quite distinct, the one an asset, the other a liability. In the distribution of the land fund in the past, the Provincial Council seem to have teen actuated by the idea that the towns, ar

centres of population, have no right to a share of it, because they have ceased to contribute anything by land sales to it. It is not my intention to discuss the justice or otherwise of the position assumed by the Provincial Council; it is enough for my purpose to shew that the same argument does not apply with regard to the capitation grant. This is directly paid by the people, and should be as directly returned by being paid over, at the rate of 15s per head, to the municipalities and Road Boaids, that being the way it is calculated by the General Government. By this means, Christchurch would receive a present annual income of about £BOOO, and the adjoining districts also large sums, by virtue of their large population.

There is no reason why it should not be paid over; the Provincial Government can well spare it while the laud fund lasts. In the recent debates, both Mr Montgomery and Mr Maskell have spoken in favor of the permanent charges being paid out of the land fund. If this had been done, and a fair proportion handed over to the municipalities, &c.; first, of the two-thirds of customs revenue; later, three-eighths, and now the capitation grant, which have from time to time been refunded by the General to the Provincial Government; I say that the municipalities would have had ample means to provide for their urgent necessities, and would not now have required to sue in forma pauperis for a grant in aid to meet their pressing requirements. I see the present Government have placed on the estimates as a grant for municipalities and Road Boards the sum of £75,000, which has to be divided among thirty-eight road boards, and four municipalities. From this grant I hear it is proposed to at once hand over £15,000 to the Road Boards, to make up to them the amount they should have received under last year’s vote of £100,946, as against the paltry sum of £5500 to the municipalities. How then is the balance of £60,000 to be divided? Is it to be on the basis of population, and Christchurch get its £IO,OOO out of it; or is it to be given £ for £ in proportion to the amount that each district rates itself ? I fear not. Either of the above propositions would not suit country members. No Government would stand who proposed it. In the indiscriminate scramble, will the poor municipalities, so unfairly represented, obtain what would be just or expedient for them to have ; or will they simply have a thousand or two doled out to them ? We are told the reason we cannot receive a large grant in aid for sanitary purposes is because of the great deficit —that the Government have not the money, and cannot therefore give it. Now, sir, this is simply bunkum. There is no reason in the world, if the Provincial Council chose to do it, why they should not vote at least £IOO,OOO to the city and suburbs for sanitary purposes. Lyttelton is to get her £II,OOO for a water supply, as well as her share of the vote. I do not grudge them one or the other ; but surely the claims of Christchurch and the suburbs for money to spend in making the district healthy, are quite as great as those of Lyttelton for a water supply. And now comes the question of the supposed deficiency, Sir, there is no deficiency of money to provide for all the necessary wants of the province at large, and the centres of population in particular. If it is thought necessary to revote all the sums so lavishly, extravagantly, and recklessly voted last session, and to vote some of those equally unnecessary on the estimates for the present year, why then the supposed deficit may be said to exist. But, sir, you have only to examine the different classes under the head of estimated expenditure on the balancesheet to see that they could be cut down at least £250,000 (in addition to the amount of £206,540 on the list of items of expenditure not required during current year), and still provide all that is necessary for the public good. I find, sir, that at the foot of the column of eslimated expenditure the enormous sura of £203,625 for railway works (which please bear in mind has nothing to do with the annual expenses of working the railways, that is provided in a previous sum of £148,450.) Well, sir, on looking for class 29 to find how it proposed to expend this sum of £203,625, the totals are there but the items are blank, and no wonder. In order to get at some of these items, I turn to schedule C of last year’s Appropriation Ordinance. I find one item, £60,000, for the extension of Point railway to Opawa. This, I take it, is to extend the branch line already constructed from the Washdyke, near Timaru, to the Point into the Mackenzie Country, where at present, perhaps, a dozen squatters reside—which railway might be calculated to pay working expenses twenty years hence. I look farther through this schedule, and find so many more extravagant items, that I feel certain it could be cut down at least £IOO,OOO with advantage. I next take the item of buildings and works, £301,149, from the items of estimated expenditure on the balance sheet andexamine class 20. Here is the same reckless extravagance. There is the sum of £21,528 for a bridge at the gorge of the Waimakariri. Of this amount I see £II,OOO is proposed not to be spent this year. Now, Sir, is this bridge required for years to come ? Can we afford to build it for the accommodation of perhaps twenty individuals when thousands are crying out for sanitary measures to prevent the spread of sickness and death all around us 2 I see in the same schedule £12,466 for Waimate Gorge road. Why should this sum be taken from the general funds to make a road in an out of the way corner of the province, with scarcely any settlers near it ? If the few there require it, why cannot theWaimate Road Board make it out of the £37,779 they received for land sales last year alone? Again, I see £13,624 put down for additions to the Museum ? Now, can any man in his senses say this is a necessity ? Is not that institution already far in advance of anything in the colony ? Is it not already an expensive toy ? burely ten years hence would be soon enough to extend it when other wants are provided for the people. I think, sir, it is unnecessary to go on farther. This class 20 is bristling with extravagant items, which no sensible member of the Provincial Council could conscientiously vote for, and at the same time see the condition of the streets of Christchurch, its rotten bridges, its filthy side channels, and the suburbs of the city without any sanitary regulations whatever. I do sincerely trust the present Government will, when the estimates are discussed, take the same bold stand they have with the Museum, and use the pruning knife unsparingly, and then see their way to bring down supplementary estimates for a large grant in aid of the municipalities and suburban districts.

mous sums for nearly every possible object that money could be spent on, on the assumption that the land sales would increase instead of decrease. What they now require is the moral courage to admit their error. They should consider that under the altered circumstances they are not bound to revote a single one of the lapsed votes of last session. They would then have ample means to provide all that is asked for the centres of population, and also to complete the building of schools without any additional taxation whatever. If they only consider that it is their duty to allocate the public funds so as to ensure the health, comfort, and convenience of the many, and rot to sacrifice lives by selfish motives for the benefit of the few, they will then reap the hearty thanks of every honest man in the community. Yours, &c, FREDK. HOBBS, Mayor of Christchurch.