The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume X, Issue 616, 2 October 1858, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times.

Saturday, October 2. On the 16th of next month the sheep farmers of the province are invited by the Government to meet, Cor the purpose of recommending a fit person to hold the office of Inspector of Sheep, in the place of Sir William Gongreve, resigned. In issuing this invitation, the Provincial Government has been guided by the precedent established iR the case of the .first and only appointment hitherto made to this office. "The -course taken by the late Government appeared ■to give general satisfaction •amongst the sheep farmers, who naturally considered that their -opinion ought to carry due weight in the selection of an officer, whose technical knowledge of :their business was of such importance. At that time the voice of the large majority of the .sheep farmers was so distinctly in favour of Sir William Congreve, that, the Provincial Government had little difficulty in? deciding -upon-the propriety of appointing him. Are the sheep -farintti's tit the present; moment,prepared to, re.commend any .man with.'a tolerable show of . unanimity? ~ -."..- ... ... . ■ ,'. 1 The "Canterbury, Standard,' in its, lastissue, •.complains that the Government is throwing off its responsibility to the public by the course it 'ha* .adopted ; and,.tot;t!ly-j£jnor:uig,t!ie precedent p-^tiiblishe'l by the late Government, blames the present itufchorities .for this " most; improper act " We shoiildiike to know the grounds on which our contemporary determines that the advice asked for by the1 late Government'should jg»o,t be asked for a^ain now? Would not the

sheep-farmers,—would not our contemporary, —have complained, had the Government taken upon itself to select a successor to Sir William Congreve without consulting the gentlemen most interested ? Is there an}- reason to show

why they should have been consulted in 1554, but should not be consulted in ISSS ? And it any sheep-farmers are to be consulted, why not all ? How is an invidious distinction to be made between those consulted and those not consulted, and how could such a distinction be justified ?

We cannot think that these questions were duly considered before our contemporary advanced its complaints against the present Government. There are two sides to every question, and objections to the course pursued on this occasion are easily to be found, lsut it must be remembered that the office is one of a

very peculiar nature—one to which we have no antilogy; and we conceive that there would have been a really just ground of complaint if the Provincial Government had chosen to ignore the sheep-farmers as a body, in the selection of an Inspector of Sheep. As to the Government calling to their counsels some men of good repute and practical knowledge amongst the sheep-farmers, we ask again who should be selected ? It is very well known that the sheep-fanners do not agree very well amongst themselves on. this as on many other subjects; hence really arises the present complaint from some; hine Him lachri/mce. If they are prepared deliberately to state that they had rather not be consulted, well aud good, the Government will have done its duty in offering them an opportunity of tendering their advice, and would then be justified in taking the selection entirely into its own hands. Perhaps, if tlvr.1 is"any rjalj difficulty in coming lo an agreement, it would be the best course on the part of the sheep-owners. With respect to the interpretation of the advertisement signed by the Provincial Secretary, our contemporary differs from us. The responsibility is in no wise cast off by the Government. The Government makes the appointment and will be responsible for miking the offieei appointed do his duty- No power nor control is handed over to the sheep-farmers. There can be no doubt but that should the opinion of the latter be very decided, that opinion ought to be taken; but we do not understand that the Government pledges itself to give the appointment to that particular person who may have a majority of a few votes after a close-run contest. A recommendation will have due weight, but a recommendation is not an appointment. We conceive that in any case the Government will be held responsible for the due performance of the duties of the office.

As to previous shortcomings, there is no doubt but that there was blame somewhere. But on this point too, our contemporary is rather hasty in throwing the whole blame upon the present Government. We have made enquiry as to the monthly returns which should have been regularly sent in' b}- inspectors of sheep, and we find that none have been forwarded to the secretary's office since the month of February, 1857; i.e., from the date of Mr. Packer's accession to office as Provincial Secretary. The present Government, on assuming office, did nob find the custom of requiring such returns in existence. We do not adduce this as a proof that; there was no neglect, but as aground—and a father amusing ground—of suspicion that the present complaint is a " case" made up on insufficient data against present office-holders.

In conclusion, we -would urge upon sheepfarmers £he desirability of carefully considering the question proposed to them,and the duty of not being led into hasty promises of support to anyone man or another, as though they were canvassed to vote at an election. It lies with them to show whether the course adopted at the first appo'infcment of a Sheep Inspector, and now followed by the Provincial Government, is one calculated to conduce to the interests of the sheep-farmers as a body and of the province at large.