THE GLOBE. MONDAY, MAY 17, 1880.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1943, 17 May 1880, Page 2

THE GLOBE. MONDAY, MAY 17, 1880.

In the discussion of public questions it is, of all things, necessary that good nature and temperate language should be the rule guiding those who aspire to take part in public affairs. This, we are sorry to observe, is not the case in a controversy now going on. It is a matter of notoriety that the Drainage Board and the public are at loggerheads, and that a committee appointed by the Board is preparing a manifesto, which the Board hopes will allay the agitation of the public. Mr. Frederick Hobbs has taken it upon himself to anticipate the Drainage Board by replying to the statements made by Mr. Ollivier in his speech at the public meeting. In doing so it appears to us that Mr. Hobbs has been guilty of a piece of the most gross impudence. As we understand the matter, the public want to know the intentions of the Drainage Board —not the opinions of that unit, Mr. Frederick Hobbs. But, even though Mr. Hobbs might bo forgiven the impudence, on the ground of his not knowing any better, nothing can excuse him for the use of such language as he employed in referring to Mr. Ollivier in his letter published in the Lyttelton Times of Monday last.

Mr. Hobbs has been before the Christchurch public for some years, and filled the important office of Mayor of the city for two years. One who has been thus honored by his fellows should surely be the last to sot the example of scurrility in his effusions on public matters. We

are sorry to find that in Mr. Hobbs’ reply to Mr. Ollivier, abuse takes the place of argument, and the •* lie direct ” is freely made use of. Such phrases as “ I accuse him of giving a wilfully distorted summary;” “ I accuse Mr. Ollivier of wilfully misquoting Mr. Clark’s report “ No, no, no, Mr. Ollivier, you know this is untrue “ it is all bunkum,” and other equally objectionable sentences are of frequent occurrence. Now, although Mr. Hobbs has evidently not had sufficient good sense to profit by his experience of public life to make himself respectful towards others, the age and position of Mr. John Ollivier should, one would have thought, have insured him against such coarseness as is contained in the few sentences we have quoted from Mr. Hobbs’ letter. Abuse is no argument, and is to be deprecated at all tirp.es ; but for a comparatively young man like Mr. Frederick Hobbs to make use of such unseemly language in the public prints towards one of our oldest and most honored public men is something disgraceful. No doubt the ratepayers will remember this the next time Mr. Hobbs comes before them. The dog is the friend of man par excellence. “ Love me, love my dog,” is one of the most popular of all proverbs. Apparently many love their dogs almost as well as their children, some of them even more. Poets sing of dogs, sportsmen and old maids rave of them. And as a rule there are few better companions than an intelligent dog. He understands his master thoroughly; he is seldom out of temper, and he is never a bore. He is always ready to dance with those that dance, and to weepwith those that lament. He will lay his life down for his friend, whose welfare he watches with the tenderest interest. We aro not advocating the cause of the canine criminal class—of that large body of Jdogs who rove about mat tarless, or wl« by having never been registered endeavor to defraud the revenue by refusing to bear any portion of the public burden. But we are alluding to the registered dog with a ratepaying owner, and we say that this noble animal is but little inferior to his And we cannot help thinking that these deserving creatures are very hardly treated by the police. Emissaries aro apparently sent out from the police depot who collect dogs between the hours of 5 and 9 a.m., and then those animals that are not claimed are poisoned at six o’clock in the evening. “ A strong rope and a short shrift ” is all that is granted by the police. No allowance is apparently made for the chance of the dog having wriggled himself out of his collar, or for the collar having been taken off by children, or for the hundred other ways in which a dog may lose his passport. At six o’clock sharp he is executed, before probably he is even missed by| his master, who returns to his hearth in the evening and waits in vain for his friend. That friend, alas! is stiff and cold, and is awaiting burial or to mutton pies. We really do think that the dogs might bo kept a few days before they are destroyed. The charges in connection with such an operation would not be heavy, and a portion might be charged against those owners who reclaim their animals. As the matter now stands, a man may have a valuable registered dog and lose it before he almost misses it, and that UirungL no It &C Lies own, Lut by the merest accident.