THE PUBLISHED DAILY. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1872.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1318, 19 October 1872, Page 2

THE Grey River Argus. PUBLISHED DAILY. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1872.

The matter and manner of much of the comment made upon the public acts of public men in New Zealand are certainly not calculated to encourage men possessed of any delicacy of feeling to become covetous of discharging the duties and enjoying the honors of a representative of the people. In many cases the comments made, instead of making men careful of their actions and deferent to criticism, are calculated rather to make them utterly callous, or, if they are at all of a sensitive nature, to hasten their retirement from public life in dismay and disgust. The characteristic of these comments is not so much an indulgence in "Billingsgate" as the use of mean insinuations as to men's motives—insinuations which, if passed even in a pot-house, would, according to the moderate sense of honor supposed to prevail among the habitues of such places, in all probability involve their author in the trouble of receiving* " between the eyes " the contents of a beer pot, or an illustration of the force of a "bunch of fives." It is the melancholy fact also that this style of criticism, if criticism it can be called, is most common in communities, and in the coteries of communities, which pretend most to good birth and good breeding. It is not in the columns of newspapers published for the perusal of the rough-and-ready . population of the smaller inland mining or agricultural communities of the Colony that such mean comments are to be found, but most commonly in papers published in such places as Nelson and Wellington — papers whose columns are replete with apt quotations from the classics, while a sense of ordinary honor on the part of the classical contributor is conspicuous by its absence. The meanness of spirit exhibited by these leading lights seems, however, to be infectious; the style of comment which they adopt is daily becoming more prevalent. A modern example of its prevalence was given by the comments made in several places, and. in certain papers, upon the conduct of members of the Assembly who lately contributed to the cause of reinstating Mr Yogel and his colleagues in the position from [ which, for a few weeks, they were fortuitously forced. Because two members, •Messrs Shephard and Creighton, had j given a vote antagonistic to the Fox Ministry, it was, forsooth, assumed that they must needs express confidence in the coterie with which Mr Stafford surrounded himself as Premier ! The process of logic by which the critics arrived at such a conclusion is not very clear to the common mind, but the defectiveness of their reasoning power is a trifle compared with the abundance of their disposition and ability to abuse. Of Mr Creighton, for instance, it was said that he was a journalist out of employment, and it was insinuated that because of his neediness in that respect, and because of the hope or the fact of obtaining employment from Mr Yogel as a newspaper proprietor, he voted as he did. The statement we believe to be as false as it is foul, and in foulness, apart from falseness, it excels anything that has been said by those in these Colonies who, while protending to belong to the profession of letters, delight in exhibiting their lack of all esprit de corps. Similarly mean-spirited comments are made with regard to Mr Shephard. As a member of the House he never has disguised his antagonism to Mr Fox. On th 9 other hand, he expressed his opinion with regard to Mr Fox'b visit to the West Coast in a manner which we humbly ventured to think was unworthy of him, and far from being justified by the facts. But he was not opposed to Mr Vocel, nor to others of his colleagues, and in expressing his want of confidence n Mr Stafford and hb party he was perectly consistent with antecedent speech and action, If, indeed, there is any man

who can claim the credit of having, in the late division^ voted independently and contrary to his own personal interests, Mr Shephard is that man. It was to his interest to have voted for the continuance of Mr Ourtis in office, for he had a very fair chance of becoming that gentleman's successor in the Superintendent's chair, and he chose a course which directly defeated the realisation of any ambition in that direction which his friends might have encouraged him to entertain. Yet is Mr Shephard subjected to the very same style of " criticism" which has been used in the case of Mr Creighton. Because he voted against the Fox Ministry as it was constituted, the logical writers for the Wellington Post assume that he was by that vote bound to support the men who elected themselves as their successors, and, because he did not do so, he is described as being guilty | of " gross and flagrant desertion." " His ' action towards Mr Curtis, considering the relations existing between them, has been monstrous," exclaims the Post, the monstrosity of the matter lying, no doubt, in the fact that Mr Shephard did not prostitute his vote, and support the scandalous proceeding of three Superintendents holding office at one and the same time as Superintendents and Ministers of the Crown. And another critic who takes the trouble to forward his opinion to Nelson all the way from "Coal Creek Flat," is permitted to suggest in print that he "sacrificed the interests of the Province for his own private benefit !" Another and a "special" correspondent of the Examiner whose communications are peculiarly pervaded with the spirit of that paper — the spirit to make the meanest possible suggestions as to men's honesty and veracity — considers Mr Shephard's "ratting to have been of snch a character as to bring discredit upon representative institutions in this country, and to stamp his political career with infamy." And all this sort of language is indulged in because a man chooses to exercise openly his judgment and his vote — because he says of one group of men that they have nofc^ conducted the public business to his satisfaction, and of a succeeding group that he did not believe they are capable of doing ao — so capable as another and a third group of whom he approves. To have their conduct commented upon freely and fully is only what all public men mu9t expect when they assume the responsibilities of popular representatives, but in this instance and in others which might be enumerated the comments of public writers have been distinguished much more by personal antipathy than by a sense of justice or by a desire to promote the public good.