The Globe. MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 859, 26 March 1877, Page 2

The Globe. MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1877.

The Star of Saturday evening brings a dread!ul charge against us. We have either been telling “ a direct and wilful falsehood,” or, we have been bearing “ honest testimony to the great influence of the (. Lyttelton ) Times." Either accusation is sufficiently alarming, and the culpability of the one is, we think, about on a par with that of the other. But have we really been guilty of either crime ? The Star bases its accusation on the following sentence which appeared in'aleading article in our Friday’s issue:—‘‘Unfortunately for him (Mr Fisher), the Lyttelton Times could not afford to allow such an excellent opportunity to slip of having a fling at the majority of our Canterbury members; and so the few expressions of opinions to which Mr Fisher committed himself are treated with the utmost respect and deference.” Our contemporary then goes on to remark —“ The hardy mendacity of the first clause of this sentence, if taken by itself, is sufficiently exposed by merely stating that the Times' article contained no reference whatever to the collective Canterbury members, apart from the public men and legislators of the colony, and that Mr. Wason was the only one, except Mr. Fisher, whose name was mentioned. It might possibly be supposed that the last clause of the above quoted sentence is intended to advance the argument that the Times' praise of Mr. Fisher is in itself a diminution of the glory of, or ‘ a fling at,’ the other Canterbury members. The fact that the clause in question might be so construed is perhaps purely accidental. If not accidental, it must be taken as a very high compliment, for it is testimony, wrung from an unwilling enemy, to the very great public importance attached to commendation or blame from the Lyttelton Times." Later on in his remarks, our contemporary appears inclined to abandon the charge of “ mendacity,” so that it is scarcely necessary to say anything beyond stating that the construction which we put upon the remarks of the Times was the most reasonable one, and certainly the most charitable. We must therefore hasten to clear ourselves of the charge of grossly flattering our contemporary by bearing “ honest testimony to thegreatinfluence of the Times." Now, in order to make good his accusation, our contemporary is obliged to put a construction upon our words which he is not justified in doing. We would point out that having “ a fling” at the other Canterbury members, and diminishing their glory, are not equivalent terms. The Star may think so, and so perhaps does the Lyttelton Times. But opinions probably differ. Judging from past experience, the other Canterbury members need not be greatly alarmed. Their “ glory” will not suffer any great “ diminution” in consequence of the opposition of the Times; for to have been abused by our contemporary has hitherto been the best certificate our public men could receive.

The Selwyn County Council, after some deliberation, has at last solved the difficult problem of apportioning the money at its disposal amongst the various Eoad Boards. There was no scrambling, no squabbling, but everything was done with due decorum and solemnity. Dr. Turnbull must have experienced some little difficulty, after his determined championship of the claim of municipalities, in assuming ihe new role of protector of the country districts. But while this is the case, no one will deny the justice of his propositions. Those outlying districts which have contributed so largely to the general stock, and have not yet received a return in the shape of public

works, have certainly a right to ask for a larger share than the metropolitan and suburban boards, where a large amount of work has been done. Therefore Dr. Turnbull’s modified scheme seems to us to be based upon justice, and though his quondam proteges, the City and Borough Councils, may not be altogether satisfied with him in advocating the claims of the country against the suburbs, there can be no doubt that to have taken any other course would have been alike unfair and unsatisfactory.

It is not perhaps generally known that what has been felt as a hardship by many persons who are owners of dogs has been removed. We refer to the abolition of the provision which rendered a dog, though registered in one province, liable to taxation if the owner took him to another. Under the Financial Arrangements Act, it is provided that once a license fee has been paid in one part of the colony, the receipt shall be sufficient to exempt an animal from taxation in any other. This, all will agree, was a needed reform, and the only condition attached to it is that the owner shall prove, by production of the official receipt, that a register fee has been paid. By this means, what was a very oppressive regulation has been done away with, and, in a small degree, a step taken towards breaking down the petty barriers of Provincialism.

Another colonist has been added to the gradually increasing band of Knights of St Michael and St George. The Hon Mr. Fitzherbert, we are informed by telegram, is the one selected for this special mark of Eoyal favour. During a long political career Mr. Fitzherbert has occupied a prominent position in the affairs of the colony. He has been connected with several Ministries, and up to the time of his practical retirement from the arena of politics, by the acceptance of the Speakership, took an active part in party warfare. The distinction now bestowed upon him is one that is well merited, and is a fitting tribute to the many services rendered by him to the colony as a whole.