The Globe. THURSDAY, MAY 18, 1876.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 597, 18 May 1876, Page 2

The Globe. THURSDAY, MAY 18, 1876.

We must confess to be getting somewhat tired of the promises of the City Council of Christchurch to erect public baths in the city. Year after year the question has been brought up in the City Council, and resolutions on the subject passed. It has been the “ ticket” on which more than one has sought to secure his return, and yet nothing has been done. The only result has been to prevent private speculators from stepping forward and providing a much-felt want. Once more the same course has been pursued. Tired of waiting longer for the long-promised boon, a number of gentlemen resolved to float a company for the purpose of erecting a proper building, fitted up with all modern appliances. There was no prospect of a difficulty in raising the money. A site had been selected, and the terms of an agreement with the proprietor drawn up, for the purpose of being submitted to a public meeting held yesterday. The promoter of the company bad explained to those present the details of the proposed plan, when the business was brought to a standstill by the announcement from his Worship the Mayor, that the Corporation had once more resolved to enter upon the speculation—only they had no money for the purpose “just yet.” They hoped during the present session to obtain the power to borrow the necessary money, when they would set about the work at once. So, for the present, the question is shelved. Another year, at least, will be spent in debating the matter, even if the Council ever finds itself possessed of the money to build the baths. We hope, however, that the public will keep the Council to its promise, and give its members no peace until this great boon is supplied to the citizens. While on this subject we would suggest the. propriety of forming a company for the erection of proper swimming baths in Lyttelton. The company might make arrangements with the railway authorities for the running of a special train, in the early morning, during the summer months, for the convenience of bathers from Christchurch. Season tickets might be issued, to include the railway fare and admission to the baths, and, if the charge were at all reasonable, we believe it would be largely taken advantage of by residents in the city. For many years this plan has been successfully carried out in Melbourne; and, although our population is of course very far less than that of the capital of Victoria, there are surely a sufficient number amongst us who would be willing to pay a fair sum for the luxury of sea bathing were it placed within their reach.

We have already commented on the remarks made by Madame Simonsen in the Theatre the other evening, and therefore do not intend to reopen the discussion of the questions then raised. But so much misapprehension appears to exist in the minds, not only of professionals, but of the general public, regarding the duties of the press towards public entertainers, that a few words at present on the subject may not be out of place. It seems to be taken for granted that the truth can only be spoken when it is favourable. Adverse criticism, it is urged, damages the business of those criticised, and therefore it is cruel and wicked to indulge in it, and thus deprive the object of it of the means of living. Those who argue thus seem to forget that the journalist has a duty to perform to the public as well as to the professionals, and that in bestowing fulsome aud unmerited praise, he is negectiug his duty as a public instructor, and assisting to defraud those of his readers who may be influenced bj his remarks. Unfortunately this view of the duty of a journalist does not appear to be generally entertained throughout the colony. It is too much the fashion to lavish indiscriminate praise on good and bad performances alike. On arrival here, however, professionals discover to their amazement that different ideas to those they have been accustomed to, prevail regarding the duties of a journalist, and they are totally at fault in these altered circumstances. They find that they have to submit to just and impartial criticism, and when that is adverse, instead of seeking for the cause of it in their own imperfections aud want of judgment, they instinctively try to discover some personal motive on the part of the critic to account for it. Does not this view of the question tell equally against his motives when his remarks are favourable ?