THE CITIZENS’ BALL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2532, 20 May 1882, Page 3

THE CITIZENS’ BALL.

W eee it not that the good name of the citizens of Christchurch is in some waj implicated by the unmitigated fiasco 'made by the committee of management of the return ball to the Mayor, we should not refer to it. But wo feel bound, on the part of the citizens as a body, to distinctly and emphatically state that some few individuals only, and not the general body of citizens, are responsible for what we cannot but describe as an insult to the Mayor. To worthily dispense tho hospitality of Christchurch to the many visitors who were at that time here, the Mayor gave a magnificent entertainment. In response for this the ball, which has now become somewhat unpleasantly notorious, was given. Tho management, unfortunately, was defective in tlxo last degree, and Christchurch citizens have tho satisfaction of knowing that they have been connected with a dire and lamentable failure. Had the Mayor been niggard with his hospitality there might have been some excuse, but under tho circumstances the public have a right to make it known that they, as a body, are in no way responsible for the slight thus cast on their Chief Magistrate. Tho general body will, wo are sure, agree with us that his Worship is entitled to the greatest possible praise for the manner in which he not only upheld tho dignity of his office, but also extended a right royal welcome to the sojourners in Christchurch. It is, therefore, to be regretted that ihe action of a few should, to a certain extent, compromise the public. As a citizen’s recognition of tho Mayor, the arrangements, instead of being in tho hands of a select few, who appear to have failed most signally, should have been confided to a committee of citizens, who certainly would never have allowed the guest of the evening and tho representative of Her Majesty to arrive without a proper reception by those who, for the nonce, were tho hosts on behalf of tho city. It is, of course, useless to cry over spilt milk. It has gone forth that, in return for a princely display of hospitality, tho citizens have organised a failure, but wo trust that care will bo taken next time to prevent the same thing occurring.

THE “STAR” AS TRUTHFUL JAMES. OuR contemporary the “ Star,” in those fearfully and wonderfully constructed articles which now adorn its columns, occasionally takes npon itself to lecture the world. The other evening it poured out the vials of its wrath upou some gentlemen who are projecting a fair of

the olden time in Christchurch. There was scarcely anything too bad for them, and the Mayor and Council were congratulated upon having escaped from the clutches of such ravening wolves. But the facts wore entirely opposite. Instead of the projectors making an offer which would enrich them at the expense of the charity for whose benefit it was proposed to hold the fair, their terms were of the most liberal description. It must be remembered that the idea is now novol, that the projectors offered to place at the disposal of the Mayor the whole of the scenery, buildings, &c., especially designed at some cost for the fair. To get the thing up in anything like the style, the acceptance of the offer made would have enabled those interested in the charity, simply to swallow up the major portion of the proceeds. Despite our solemn friend’s protestation, we are decidedly of opinion that the offer was one which, in the interests of the fund proposed to be benefited, should have boon accepted with thanks. No such an one will again be made, and if, as is stated, there is some intention of getting up a bazaar, it will fall exceedingly flat, stale, and unprofitable after tbe much superior attractions offered by the fair. Our contemporary, in dealing with ths matter, seems to have adopted Jedburgh justice—hanging the supposed offender first, and trying him afterwards.