THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1881. THE MISREPRESENTING “TIMES.”

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2403, 17 December 1881, Page 3

THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1881. THE MISREPRESENTING “TIMES.”

Ever since Mr. Allwright claimed the right as a representative of the people to exorcise his own judgment and not blindly place himself in the hands of the “great proconsul” like Mr. Andrews, the “ Lyttelton Times ” has taken every opportunity to vilify him, whether justly or not. If by any possible means anything taking place in public affairs with which Mr. Allwright is concerned can be distorted, the “ Lyttelton Times ” continues to do it. A notable instance of this occurs in the issue of the “ Times ” this morning. At the late meeting of the Lyttelton Harbour Board, the question of the Sailors’ Home to he established in Lyttelton was mooted by one of the members. It was resolved to appoint a sub-committee to consider the matter and the name of the Mayor of Lyttelton was added thereto. That gentleman declined to act, and immediately the “Times” seizes this as a text whereon to hang a sort of sarcastic leading article upon Mr. Allwright. As to the article itself, the meaning and intent of it would have been more clearly expressed had the writer added an explanatory paragraph to the following effect:—“N.B. —This is sarkastikal.” The “ Times,” of course, true to its role of vilification at any price, immediately discovers all kinds of imaginary reasons for Mr. Allwright’s refusal to act. It insinuates that he was actuated by a feeling of shame at some electioneering trick which our friend, with his usual adherence to truth, asserts was attempted to be perpetrated. The fact is that the “ Times” has so long and so often assisted in these little dodges while under the nourishing reign of the “ old man eloquent,” that it will not give any one else credit for purity of motive. Mr. Allwright’s action in this matter, as he explained to the Board, was due to an entirely different cause to that imputed by our contemporary, and his objection to serve on the committee was shared by Mr. P. Cunningham, who has taken great interest in tho matter. These gentlemen were induced by the request of the Board to withdraw their objections, and there the matter ended. Our contemporary in its eagerness to seize upon any little trifle which can ha transformed into an attack npon Mr. Allwright, has made a mountain out of a mole hill. Not only so, but there are positive mis-statements of facts which amount to a perversion. The article says:—“ Of course Mr. Allwright had to become a member of the committee in the end. The Mayor of Lyttelton could not allow the Mayor of Lyttelton to be passed over in a connection of such importance to the borough.” There is, we need hardly say, not one word of truth in the whole of this paragraph. Mr. Allwright only yielded to the pressingly expressed wish of the Board that he should become a member of the committee, and this appeared in our contemporary’s report of the proceedings. It does seem to ns highly degrading to the honorable profession of journalism when a paper professing to be one of the leaders of public opinion in the colony, deliberately and with malice aforethought makes statements not consistent with facts for the purpose of damaging a political opponent. There was a time when the same journal sang the praises of Mr. Allwright in no measured strain, and its efforts in this direction were vigorously seconded by its evening satellite. But this was when they thought that Lyttelton was handed over to the “ grand old man” as a pocket borough, and whose representative was bound hand and foot to his chariot wheels. But Mr. Allwright, with a manly independence of spirit which does him honour, dared to think for himself, and to act as a representative of his constituency, and not as the tool of Sir George Grey. Hence this hatred of him by the “ Lyttelton Times,” which finds vent in a variety of ways. Of course it is quite easy to abuse any public man if facts are distorted and colored to suit the occasion. This is the line of conduct pursued by the “ Times,” not only with regard to Mr. Allwright, but of any other public man who dares to differ from their views on public questions. This may impose for a while upon the public, but the truth in tho end must prevail, and the general body of readers are now beginning to see through and appreciate the little game of our contemporary. No doubt other equally glaring cases of misrepresentation as that to which we • have now called attention have occurred, but we hope that ere long the “ Times ” will seo the error of its ways, and, remembering that in journalism as well as in the affairs of life generally honesty is the beat policy, resolve to give up its evil courses and live cleanly for the future.

EXITS FROM THEATRES. The recent disaster at the Vienna Theatre has once more roused public attention to the necessity of seeing that every provision is made for the speedy exit of the audience at our local theatre in case of a panic. A correspondent in one of our contemporaries has recently been writing on the subject, and an editorial note is appended, stating that various improvements have been carried out with a view to improving the moans of ogress. There is no doubt that is so, but we fancy that there still remains a great deal to do. For instance, we should like to know whether any moans exists ■by fire-hose or water tanks at the back of the stage for extinguishing fire. In nearly all cases the fires in theatres have commenced on the stage, and not in the auditorium at all. The reason for this is not far too seek. There is, during any performance, a certain amount of risk from fire on the stage, which is intensified whore the class of pieces performed are what is known as “ sensational.” A large quantity of chemicals of various kinds are then used, and it then requires great caro—which we regret to say is not always exercised —to see that no fire takes place. If there is no means at the rear of the stage of our theatre for the extinction of fire, it is quite time that there should be. Such a provision might avert a very serious catastrophe, because it is well known that at the commencement of a fire it is easily got under. A groat deal of precious time would be lost if, before any means to extinguish a fire taking place at the theatre, the Fire Brigade had to be summoned. That body

is remarkably prompt in attending fires, but the first tew minutes, aye, or even seconds, is the time when the chances of extinction are greatest. We hope the City Council will take means to ascertain whether the precaution we have alluded to does exist, and if it does not, to see that it is provided without delay.