The Globe. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1064, 24 November 1877, Page 2

The Globe. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1877.

A week or two ago the Li/Mellon Times ■ recommended the Ministry to the unreserved confidence of the public on account of their pre-eminent, aptitude for tactics and superior skill in party warfaro. The admiration of success, no matter by what means secured, is not, however, confined to our contemporary. The Oiayn Daily Times, another thick and thin supporter of the Grey Ministry, is a warm admirer of their tactics. Speaking of the financial statement, the Times says:— We shall not withhold the meed of onr praise and admiration for the tactics exhi bited. It will be very hard if Majir Atkinson is called on to assail his own Finauc.-al Statement, as in the basis of the present one, especially after the high eulogium passed by the present Treasurer on its lucidity and illimitable excellencies. Mr. Sheehan on Sir Donald ML'Lean, and Mr. Larnach on Major Atkinson, constitute two of the most striking pictures presented in Parliamentary tactics No one can now misapprehend the drift of the Government movements. If for nothing else, Ministers deserve success for their consummate tact. It is evident that our contemporary can see nothing discreditable in the course which the Ministry have pursued. On the contrary, their conduct meets with the warmest approval. The Daily Times can see nothing moan and dishonorable in Mr. Sheehan's conduct in attacking the late Sir Donald M'Leau and his policy on every possible occasion while in Opposition, and then in turning round and passing a high eulogium upon both as soon as he gets into office. In the same way Mr. Larnach began his career as a Minister even, with making the wildest statements as to the finance of Major Atkinson, and subsequently turns round and makes it the basis of his own. Truly those two spectacles " constitute two of the most striking pictures presented in Parliamentary tactics.'' But it is a humiliating picture after all. It is an exhibition of political dishonesty, hitherto rarely witnessed in this colony. The time was when our public men had principles which they regarded as worth fighting, and if necessary making sacrifices, for. "We believe there are a minority in the House still who are actuated by purely patriotic motives, and who arc sincerely anxious for the good of the colony. But we are sorry to observe a growing tendency not only in the House, but out of it, to applaud successful trickery. The Lyttelton Times calls this •'pre-eminent aptitude for tactics a superior skill or party warfare," but it deserves a plainer name. The Ministerial proposals regarding the land fund, as far as Canterbury is concerned, are evidently regarded in Otago as a simple act of spoliation. The Daily Times, at any rate, which wo presume is to some extent an exponent of public opinion in that part of the colony, thus writes on the subject : We must confess to no small feeling of satisfaction in seeing that Canterbury will now have to suffer for her foolish conduct in isolating herself from her best fri< nd last year. We are no admirers of a policy of revenge, but this we hold to be poetical justice, such as is not often meted out in political mat-iers. Such is the view entertained of the Ministerial proposals as they affect this provincial district. We have not even the satisfaction of knowing that in parting with our land fund we are doing so in the best interests of the colony. It is in obedience to a policy of revenge, or as it is called, " poetical justice," because our members last year refused to join in an unholy alliance with those from Otago. They declined to be a party to the splitting up of the colony, notwithstanding the bribe held out, and so Canterbury has to suffer for the disinterested honesty of her members. Of course it would be unfair to impute the above opinions to all those who are in favor of the colonialising of the land fund. But the fact that they are enter* tained by the leading newspaper hi Otago is a proof, it must be supposed, that such A-iews are pretty widely held there. We hope this will be remembered when those Canterbury members who support Sir G. Grey come before, their constituents. What has our contemporary the Lyttelton Times to say to such a view of the question F Does ho feel comfortable in supporting a Ministry whose policy is regarded by the leading journal of Otago ak. jlikeby to make Canterbury " suffer" for her coiioiu.v'.t last year ?

Me. HoJiBS and the Town Clerk are likely, between them, to drive the Drainage Board and the City Council still further apart. It appears that when the assessment of the city was made the Board and the Council agreed to share the expense, without, so far as the records show, making any specific agreement. The Finance Committee of the City Council, of which Mv. Hobbs was thou chairman, fixed upon £IOO as a fair charge to make for the Board's share of the expenses Unfortunately no account was rendered Mil Recently, when the Town Cleric, in accordance with the resolution of the Finance Committee, sont in a bill, but this was returned as being indefinite. In reply, the Town Clerk sent a detailed statement of the cost of making that .valuation. This was read at yesterday's meeting, but now the cl^nj

had boon raised from £IOO io £'lso. Tliis tlio Board refused to recognise, and hence the misunderstanding. Now we want to know why Mr. Hobbs, when the claim for £IOO was first sent in, did not furnish the Board with all the necessary information. Ho had been the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Council which fixed on that amount, and he must have known perfectly well the basis upon which it had been made. Had he taken care to do so, the present difficulty would not have arisen. On the other hand the Town Clerk should certainly have consulted, the present; Finance Committee of the Council before making an additional charge. Had he contented himself with giving such information as would prove that the £IOO was a fair and reasonable charge, there would have been some excuse for his conduct. But he has certainly overstepped his duty in making a demand for £l5O when £IOO only was authorised.

Elsewhere we publish Mr H. Thomson's address to the ratepayers of Christchurch. In former articles we have directed attention more to his opponent's unfitness for office, than to Mr. Thomson's many qualifications. But- ratepayers should not overlook the fact, that in the gentleman under notice, they would have a Mayor eminently qualified to fill the position. He has large experience in municipal matters, has ample leasure, and has plenty of ability to perform the duties with credit to himself and the citizens. We hope therefore that on the day of the poll every ratepayer who wishes to see the Mayoral chair creditably filled, will take the trouble of voting for Mr. Thomson.