The Globe. WEDNESDAY, MAY 99, 1878.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1308, 29 May 1878, Page 2

The Globe. WEDNESDAY, MAY 99, 1878.

The Ministerial journals are evidently going to have a, rough time of it, and we pity them. The task they have to perform is no less a one than the reconciliation of the Ministerial policy as announced by Mr. Ballnuce, and as described by the Premier. The Government organ in Christchurch gets over the difficulty in the following language ; The sreechcs of Sir George Grey were necessarily some what vague. They broadly indicated leading features of a policy, but they did not, a d were not intended to, point out in detail its exact plan. We arc now advanced a stage further in that direction. Sir George Grey showed us the general character of the landscape; Mr Ballanco points out the particular roads which he wishes us to take. Wo leave our readers to make what they can of the above extract, and Guru to ,

the explanation given by the New Zealander, the newly-established. Ministerial organ in Wellington, Our contemporary makes no attempt to show tliat the views expressed by Mr, Ballauco aro not those of tho Cabinet, but it trios to make out that the Bill as sketched by him is uot really opposed to the expressed views of Sir G. Grey, “That tho Premier did not descend to particulars,” says the New Zealander , “is accepted as a proof that ho did uot mean to imposo restrictions. . . . In his speech at Martou, Mr Ballauco placed tho franchise proposals of tho Government in a more concrete form than they had hitherto been done; but ho did uot enunciate or discredit manhood suffrage. On the contrary, ho showed that tho term had boon misunderstood, and defended this suffrage as it existed in Prussia and other countries. In fact, ho took up tho same general ground as tho Premier had done at several of his meetings, and thou, in order to make clear to his audience what was meant, ho gave a sketch of what the measure for reform and extension of tho franchise was likely to be. . . . Tho

policy is to extend the right to a class deprived of it; not to curtail tho right of another class in possession.” Our contemporary then goes on to show that the plurality of voting, which the Government measure proposes to continue, is practically of very little value, as it would bo physically impossible for a man, intent upon the exorcise of his vote at a general election in every district, to accomplish tho feat. “ Sir G. Grey,” we aro informed, “ may have hold the opinion that no man should have more than one voto in the colony, but if he does, ho probably feels that, in the face of the great question of a broad and comprehensive extension of tho franchise, it is really of little practical moment at present,” We wonder what “the thousands who gave thoir entire support to the policy of Sir George,” on tho supposition that he was telling them the truth regarding his measures, will have to say to this new interpretation of his language. Sir G. Grey’s supporters in Christchurch must remember that, in spite of all that was said in the Oddfellows’ Hall on the subject, it was never tbo intention of the Premier to do away with the property qualification, or plurality of voting. He was entirely misunderstood; he did not mean what ho said at all. On tho contrary, when ho denounced tho iniquity of the present system, ho did not imply that it was to he swept away ; it was only to he added to. Manhood suffrage was to he understood as tho right of every man to voto who held property in a district, or who paid rates, or who occupied a house, or who had resided two years in the colony and three or six months in one district. This new definition will, we suspect, astonish the advocates of the measure in other parts of tho world.

Some of our contemporaries have been calling attention to a libel action recently instituted against the New r Lealund Herald by Mr T. Oalcntt, of Dunedin. Our contemporary gives the following account of the case : —“ It ought to be generally known that newspapers are responsible for all mistakes or errors that may occur in the transmission of telegraphic messages. Some time ago a Mr T. Oalcntt, ofj Dunedin, was represented by us, through a telegraphic blunder, as being in ‘indigent’ circumstances,instead of ‘indignant’ at certain action of the Court in compelling his attendance as a ■witness. This statement was said to have seriously injured his credit. The result was an action for libel against the proprietors of this journal. The matter was placed in the hands of our solicitors, who advised a settlement of the case, on the ground that the Government were not responsible for any ‘ errors’ in telegrams, and very reluctantly an apology for the blunder of others was given to Mr. Oalcntt, and a donation of £SO to a charity. At the bottom of each telegraph form appears a printed notice to the effect tliat the Government ‘ will uot ho responsible for errors, omissions, or delays in the transmission of telegrams.’ The law is one which certainly requires amendment, because it is manifestly unjust. Mr. Oalcntt is apparently so well pleased with having caught some one, that ho has advertised tho admission of error at his own cost.” Commenting on the above, tho Timaru Herald censures its Auckland contemporary for the course pursued, and maintains that tho case should have been defended in the Supremo Court. It points out that the mere fact of tho telegraph department placing the words that they “ will not bo responsible for errors, omissions, or delays ” is not sufficient to absolve them from all blame. The GoA'omment, onr contemporary contends, in undertaking to forward messages place themselves in tho position of common carriers, and aro therefore bound to deliver them in the same condition in which they were received, or in default to make compensation “ unless tho errors arise from unavoidable natural causes.” The point raised by the Herald is certainly an important one, and it is therefore a great pity that our Auckland contemporary did not elect to have tho question settled by the Supreme Court.