THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28. 1881.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2336, 28 September 1881, Page 3

THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28. 1881.

THE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITION. Otie readers are no doubt aware that a second Exhibition under the auspices of the Industrial Association is projected. The success which attended the one held ia the Drill-shed augurs well for a still greater measure on the occasion of that of 1882. As it happens, moreover, just in time comes a proposal which wo think will add greatly to the attractiveness of the Exhibition. Messrs. Joubert and Twopenny, who have successfully organised and carried out similar Exhibitions elsewhere, propose holding one in Christchurch some time during the first three months of 1882. So far as we gather from their proposal, it is not intended to have this Exhibition elsewhere but in Christchurch, which has been selected for its accessibility. These gentlemen have, it is well known, a very largo quantity of European exhibits, which, under ordinary circumstances, could never have found their way here. This being so, why could not the Industrial Association arrange to hold their Exhibition in conjunction with Messrs. Joubert and Twopenny. By this means each would be benefited, and instead of having the Exhibition split up, as it were, into two sections, we should be enabled to compare at a glance the handiwork of the artisans of European countries and the productions of places formed throughout the world with our local works. It is no use shutting our eyes to this fact that if we in Canterbury do not have an Exhibition next year the canny folk of Otago will. As we have pointed ont, no such opportunity as that presented by the visit of Messrs. Joubert and Twopenny is likely to occur again. We do not for one moment doubt that a collection creditable in every way, alike to Canterbury and the colony generally, would he got together under the auspices of the association. But we should not have the chance of seeing the European exhibits under these circumstances. Besides, were it known in Australia that such an amalgamation as we suggest had been come to, we should have Australian exhibitors largely occupying space. There is another phase of the question also which deserves careful attention. It is all very well to talk about the great importance and value of those exhibitions. No one denies that. But they cost money, and it is only by careful management that anything like a credit balance ia secured. If Messrs. Joubert and Twopenny open their Exhibition alone it will be a very poor look out for the Industrial Association to follow. In that case we fear that instead of a balance of some £3OO or £4OO there would be a serious deficit. We trust, therefore, that the Industrial Association will carefo'ly consider the points we have raised, as the time is getting short. There would, however, if the matter is decided in, say, a month, be ample time for intending exhibitors in the colonies to prepare their exhibits, A JOURNALISTIC PHARISEE. If there is one paper in the colony which professes almost ad nauseam to superior knowledge on every conceivable subject it is that known as the “ Telegraph.” Let an unfortunate scribe but make the smallest slip of the pen and straightway onr friend poses in a Peckaniffian attitude, and vaunts his superior knowledge. It is, therefore, to he expected that when this severely hypercritical gentleman condescends to enlighten and instruct the, to him, vulgar herd, his lucubrations will be marked with that profundity of wisdom, knowledge of the subject, and vast information which he would fain make people believe are centred in the leading columns of the paper referred to. Only last night this journalistic Pharisee—we use the term strictly in a Pickwickian sense —deigned io shed on the benighted people of Christchurch a few rays of light regarding the subject of vaccination. This is one upon which, of all others, considering the high reputation as a professional man of the reputed source of inspiration, we should have been prepared to sit at the feet of the Gamaliel of Gloucester street, and to be edified. There can he no doubt, however, of this fact, that for the first time the public have been made aware through the columns of this veracious journal of tho fearful hardships to which public vaccinatars are exposed in the discharge of their duty. They, with the Sergeant in “The Pirates of Penzance,” can truly say that their lot is not a happy one. On first reading the statement, to which we shall refer more fully presently, one is apt to be a little startled, not to say puzzled. Indeed, were it to appear in any other journal but the one alluded to, whose character for veracity and close adherence to plain facts is so well known, we should have taken the liberty of doubting it. But, for the reasons given above, we dare not do so, and therefore give even a far wider and more extended publicity to it than its original promulgator could have dared to hope, by reprinting it in our columns. Here is the gem referred to:—“The public vaccinators are strictly forbidden to use the lymph taken from tie arm of a cow without the consent of its parents” The italics are ours. For the first time, on the indisputable authority of this incarnation of wisdom, we leam that a cow possesses arms. That, perhaps, one might get over. But why the public vaccinators should be peremptorily forbidden to use any lymph taken from the arm of a cow without having first obtained the consent of the parents of the said cow we are at a

loss to understand. To begin with, how is the unhappy medico to discover the parentage of every animal. With high class cattle, whoso pedigrees are carefully recorded, it might bo possible, say, to cable to England for the consent of some well-known monarch or high-bred matron of the bovine race, but not so with others of lesser degree. How the “ consent ” is to be obtained we are not told—whether verbally or in writing. Why did our friend not enlighten ns upon these points. Probably, however, this valuable information is to bo reserved for the second edition of the pamphlet by “ A Practitioner,” which we are told will shortly be published. If this is so, we hope that in the next article on the subject our friend will sot the public mind at rest on the matter. The printer’s devil, who, as every one knows, is always at the elbow of a pressman, suggests that it must be a mistake, but we, who know that no such things as mistakes ever occur in that journal, which,, with an Argus-like vision, sees all the faults in its fellows, cannot for one moment admit this. Kb ; our friend has made a most interesting and valuable discovery. At the same time, he does not appear to have yet thought out the exact mode in which the “ consent ” spoken of is to bo given and obtained.