THE GLOBE. MAIL NOTICES. WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 1881. THE TARARUA DISASTER.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2241, 4 May 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. MAIL NOTICES. WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 1881. THE TARARUA DISASTER.

"We have been expecting—but it appears without realisation—that his Worship tho Mayor would take that position with regard to the late calamity to the Tararua, which, as Chief Magistrate of so important a city as Christchurch, it is his duty to assume. The calamity which has befallen us is not an individual one, or confined to any locality. It is a national one, so to speak, and therefore it is that we say all parts of the colony should unite to relieve and alleviate, as far as possible, the distress which is' sure to follow upon the sudden sweeping-away, in many cases, of the bread-winners of a family in some, no doubt the greater part, of its members. There can be ho question about this, that some distress will result. How great or how widespread it will be remains yet to be seen. What has already been done with reference to tho two families of the Wesleyan Ministers need not in any way affect a general subscription. Those we plead for are they who are now left in straitened circumstances, without the help, counsel, comfort, and support, of the father and husband. There may be cases where the household has pinched and saved to allow of one of its members going on a trip for restoration to health, and now they find themselves, whilst deprived of perhaps their chief support, suddenly left in poverty. Again, there is another class, those who have had others dependent upon them, such as mothers, sisters, or the like. These, too, have, alas ! perished, and the only help they can look for is that which the generosity of their fellow colonists can afford. One cannot forget how readily the appeal for the Irish Famine Fund, the Kaitangata Relief, and other casualties was responded to. This, in its way, though perhaps not so widespread in the distress caused, is equally worthy of our best sympathy and support. We trust, therefore, that the Mayor will, in view of the emergency of the case, and remembering the wellknown proverb that he gives twice who gives quickly, at once call a meeting of the citizens to consider the advisableness of starting a fund, to be applied to the relief of such cases of distress as may be found to arise out of the Tararua disaster. If this be done now, while the melancholy circumstances attending tho wreck are fresh in the minds of the public, we feel sure that a very large sum will be raised. Let, therefore, tho action we propose be taken promptly, and there need be no fear as to the result. The people of Canterbury, as a rule, are liberal, and in such a case as this the appeal would not bo made in vain. MR. ANDREWS BEFORE HIS CONSTITUENTS. When writing our former article on tho quondam representative of the " 'orny 'anded sons of toil," we did not anticipate that his speech would be such a complete fiasco. As Hamlet says, it was " Words, words, words ! but nothing else." Indeed, Mr. Andrews' speech forcibly reminds us of the course pursued by an editor of a country journal in England, who, being hard pushed for a subject to write upon, boldly clipped the leading article from the " Times" of the previous day and prefaced it with these words—" What does the 'limes' mean by this?" Mr. Andrews quoted from " Hansard" and from all and sundry documents ad nauseam, but he did not, as we suggested, give a plain straightforward statement of his opinions and views on the present state of affairs. His apology for not doing so

was tamo in the extreme. No member of the Government had spoken except the Treasurer, and he had talked upon finance. Hence Mr. Andrews was unable to give his views on public affairs. We say unhesitatingly that such an adinis- j sion is unworthy of ■ a man professing to represent such an important constituency as Ohristchurch. Mr. Andrews surely has sufficient ability to take a survey of tho present aspect of political affairs, and give us his opinions upon the result of that survey. But he did not do so. The whole speech, from beginning to end, was a hollow mockery. If Mr. Andrews had nothing better to tell the electors of Ohristchurch than he told them in his address, their time was wasted in listening to him. Never do we remember so utterly barren a speech as that delivered by the hon. member for Ohristchurch. Not one point was elucidated, and when he left off Mr. Andrews' auditors were as wise as before he commenced. We can quite understand Mr. Andrews' opposition to the retention of " Hansard." If Mr. Andrews' speeches in the House were anything like as barren as his address at the Academy, we quite agree with him that the cost of reporting and printing his remarks, as well as those of many other hon. members, is a waste of public money. There are many points about the speech on Friday evening which are exceedingly comic. For instance, reading Dr. Turnbull's letter wishing the Speaker success was funny in the extreme. Could not Mr. Andrews have also procured one, or even a telegram from the great pro-Consol Sir George Grey? Imagine the excitement when the promising words, " Good luck ! to you, Andrews, my boy; and may you successfully humbug the electors of Ohristchurch," telegraphed from the island retreat o£ the Knight of Kawau were read. Mr. Andrews might then have savei all those interruptions; or, perhaps, had he procured a line from his quondam friend the editor of the " Star," who was, during the election times, his close attendant on the platform, his reception would have been much better than it was. Probably next time Mr Andrews, in addition to securing Dr. Turnbull's valuable aid, will also take care to see that he is fortified with the authorities we have quoted. Further he will, we hope, make some sort of a speech which will let the electors know really what he does think of political affairs in general.