The Manawatu Herald. Tuesday, February 7, 1911. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 951, 7 February 1911, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. Tuesday, February 7, 1911. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

For upwards of a quarter of a century we have had mach to do with the proceediugs of local bodies in different parts of the Dominion and during that time we have enjoyed the confidence of the gentlemen constituting them. We have never once betrayed the confidence reposed in us by members of Boroughs and County Councils, Harbour, Town, Road, River and Drainage Boards, and other constituted bodies, and our honour has not once been impugned. We challenge any past or present member of the local Borough Council, during the time we have conducted this journal, to mention any breach of confidence we have committed. We do not hold ourselves up as paragons of journalistic perfectiou, because in this particular no selfrespecting journalist would so traduce his profession as to break this law. Yet it remains for Cr Speirs to order the removal of our representative from the Counci Chamber last night when the Council decided to go into committee. There is only one inference to be drawn from such procedure on the part of Cr Speirs, svhose childish conduct, however, is a thing more for pity than blame. It should, of course, be left to the good taste of the reporter to withdraw when a public body goes into committee, but, as a rule pressmen are invited to remain as their work continues when the Council resumes. Some public men are so thinskinned as to prefer to conduct the people’s business in camera. They have a vast amount of moral courage only when in coward’s castle. Such gentry should he relegated by the public to the limbo of private life. Referring to breaches of confidence, would it surprise Cr Speirs to know that certain business discussed in committee at last night’s Council meeting was subsequently divulged to an interested party, not by the awful reporter, but by a Councillor ? One has to guard agaiust being “hoist on one’s own petard,”

We had the pleasure on Saturday last of inspecting Mr Ingram’s garden and orchard in Jenks St., and it revealed a state of cultivation little short of marvellous.

The area of ground is a quarter of an acre, on which also stands the house and outbuildings. The western and south sides are sheltered by an almost impenetrable macrocarpa hedge about 16ft high, and the ea.- ' oundary is protected by a Pop r hedge, which lets the sun .nrongh in winter and provides shade in the summer. The hedges are splendidly trimmed. The soil is sandy loam with a plentiful annual admixture of stable manure. Hundredweights of plums, apples and nectarines are cropped every year and in between the rows of trees, tomatoes are grown to perfection. Over a ton of tomatoes were cropped and marketed last year, and Mr Ingram says this year’s crop is just as prolific. Besides, there are other vegetables including some fine samples of cucumbers. In fact every inch of the ground is systematically cultivated. The garden is an object lesson of the productivity of the soil it scientifically worked. Mr and Mrs Ingram are not a youthful couple —they are both over the alloted span of life —and the <- guid man ” is partially crippled with an infirmity which severely handicaps him in his work. Mrs Ingram is a wonderfully active and bright old lady and takes just as keen an interest in the garden as her husband. The old couple find a ready market locally for their crops which provides them with a small competency. Their little home, and its bright surroundings, are the result of industry, and nature has richly rewarded their labours.

Thk Roman Catholics are determined to take an active interest in municipal as well as general politics. Yesterday’s Dominion

says: “The announcements

made yesterday week by the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church in Wellington in reference to the organisation of the members of that body into a strong political party, which they hope will wield considerable power at both municipal and Parliamentary elections, are already being acted upon. The first public indication of this was observed yesterday, when, at the conclusion of the services at each of the Roman Catholic churches, the worshippers were met at the doors with the question: “Are you on the roll ? ” If there was any doubt about the matter the roll was then and there turned up, and all doubt one way or the other was removed. If it was found that a duly qualified person had not taken the precaution to register as a district elector he was at once asked to fill in an application form, which was duly signed and witnessed by electors in attendance for that purpose. As few were overlooked, it is anticipated that many hundreds of applications for registration on the new list; will be handed into the returning officer to-day.” This attitude on the part of one section of the Christian church will be followed by other denominations, and will ultimately end in sectarian bitterness not only at political elections, but in the world of politics. Historical records should warn us against church interference in secular affairs, and it is regrettable to notice that the Catholic Church is not the ouly offender in this connection.

At the inquest or the unfortunate young woman who died suddenly at the Masterton railway station last week, medical evidence testified that she had a diseased heart and was also pregnant. The coroner, Mr J. T. M. Hornsby, scathingly criticised the action of the man who had taken advantage of the girl. He said “ Those who bad viewed the remains could not help being struck with the fact that deceased was mentally weak —a poor, unfortunate woman. He had no words to characterise the conduct of the person, who was without doubt cruel, inconsiderate and unmanly. “It is a dreadful thing,’’ he continued, “ that a man, in possession of all his faculties and able to work, should take advantage of a poor, unfortunate girl whom he knew, I suppose, had been in trouble previously. Ot course, the law has no hold on a thing of this kind, so far as I. am aware, but society has. Society is able to protect itself. It is one of those painful cases which shows that some men who walk about are not far removed from brutes.”

There is trouble looming ahead between Mr T. E. Taylor, M.P., and the Leader of the Opposition. It will be remembered that during the debate in the House on the Hiue charges Mr Massey said if he could get leave to use certain information concerning Mr Taylor connected with the Seddon-Taylor case, then he would use it on the public platform at Christchurch, and there would be an end of the hon. gentleman politically. Speaking at Christchurch last week, Mr Taylor said the incident above referred to took place in November last, and he thought that Mr Massey’s charge of dishonourable conduct against him in connection with the case was the expression of an angry man, but Mr Massey had allowed it to appear in “ Hansard,” and he must assume that Mr Massey wished the charge to stand. On December 22nd he wrote to Mr Massey, stating that as that gentleman had deliberately published under Parliamentary privilege a statement that he (Mr Taylor) was in some way connected with dishonourable practices when conducting the lawsuit referred to, he urged Mr Massey to publish anything and everything he knew in connection with that matter, and he asked Mr Massey to either substantiate the charge or to withdraw unreservedly the allegations he had made. “ When Mr Massey said I had been guilty, directly or indirectly,

of the slightest deviation from honourable standards in connection with that lawsuit he lied,” continued Mr Taylor. 11 He may not have intended to lie. He may have been foolish enough to refer to some falsehood he had heard. But, notwithstanding that, he is a public man and he lied, and if he were worthy of the position he occupies as the leader of a political party in New Zealand, he would have apologised for a charge of that character involving another man’s honour —a charge for which there is no foundation. I will give him time, but if he does not do it before he ventures on to a platform in this part of the world, or anywhere else in New Zealand where I can follow him, I will give him very much occasion to regret he did not conform in this matter to the ordinary standards of coiutesy or courage. My letter calls for au answer. He has not had the courtesy to answer it. It calls for an apology. He has not had the courage to apologise. A little later on I shall consider I have your authority to deal with Mr Massey as he ought to be dealt with.”