New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4566, 8 November 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY , NOVEMBER 8.

In the fulfilment of that mission which it has appointed itself to carry out, and which no one recognizes its ability to discharge, the Timaru Herald not infrequently mistakes impudence for independence, puerility for powerful writing, and snobbishness for gentlemanly feeling. In its issue of November Ist, our contemporary furnishes proof of what we have said. It admits to its columns, in a semi-editorial garb, a series of articles under the heading “ Notes,” professing to deal with passing events. One of these notes in the issue we have mentioned occupies a column of space, and reiterates in the worst possible taste, and in very indifferent English, the scandals so recently disposed of by the report of the Public Accounts Committee. Mr. Stafford, whom popular opinion supposes to be the idol of the Timaru, Herald , gave, it may bo remembered, the weight of his personal and political reputation to the- resolution of the House of Representatives which endorsed the committee’s report, and acquitted Sir Julius Yogel of the unfounded charges which had long been made common rumor on no more sure foundation,|it turned out, than the inuendoes of Mr. Bridges. At the time Mr. Stafford gave his confirmation to the report of the committee no surprise was elicited, though it was well known, from utterances of his during previous sessions, that he was not unwilling to lend an ear to rumors detrimental to Sir Julius Yogel, and, indeed, to give them the benefit of a little eloquence on his own part in the House. Still, it was felt that in the face of the report Mr. Stafford could do no less than he did; and therefore his frank acquiescence in Sir Julius Vogel’s vindication was accepted, as we have said, without surprise, inasmuch as it was merely what should have come from any man of honorable feeling under similar circumstances. With this in view, the “Note” in the Timaru Herald seems to us to utter the speech which certain supporters of Mr. Stafford would fain have seen that gentleman utter, and which perhaps it would not have astonished some if he had uttered when the Public Accounts Committee’s report came up for consideration. For the “Note” is evidently the production of some personal as well as political enemy of Sir Julius, whose malicious disposition will not permit him to accept the judgment of an impartial tribunal, or the disgraceful breakdown of the testimony on which he relied. So he continues .to iterate charges which he forces himself to believe, simply because they are made against one whom he dislikes. And it is in doing this that the Timaru Herald, whose self-designated mission is that of an independent newspaper, is impudent, puerile, and snobbish. Impudent, because it insults public opinion which has carefully given judgment on the matter in hand; puerile, because it calls out names against its foe like some petulant schoolboy who has been beaten at fisticuffs, and considers its vituperation a mark of bravery and independence; and snobbish, because with the most execrable taste it permits itself to comment on Sir Julius Vogel’s domestic life and private concerns.. Had we space at our disposal wo should gladly reprint the article of our contemporary, in order that our readers might judge if our comments were not fully justified ; but wo, cannot say that want of space is altogether a matter of regret to us, as we have no inclination to furnish the people of Wellington and the colony with a specimen of journalistic literature discreditable to the profession. The

writer of “Notes” is mean enough, in order to support his case, or. rather shadow of A ease, to draw attention to Sir Julius ; Vogel's personal, habits of hospitality, and to his mode of living as a gentleman. The writer is at pains to impress upon us that in the conduct of his household affairs the late Premier showed a marked contrast to some who preceded him. We can well believe it. The writer, like all snobs, is ashamed of his own language, and calls a household a menage in order to air his French and his vulgarity at the same time. But adopting the expression, wo can well believe that Sir Julios Vogel’s household, or menage, did differ very materially from those of certain predecessors. If Sir Julius Vogel chose to consider that amongst the more pleasant duties of his office was to be ranked a liberal entertainment of friends and foes, and thereby to follow the precedent of English Ministers, whose duties in society have to be filled with just as much care as their duties in politics, then he had a perfect right to choose for himself, and he certainly did by his conduct in this respect offer a most agreeable contrast to the species of shabbygenteel style which some before him had maintained. A shabby-gentility which was not above little chafferings that were made public and notorious in Wellington, and need not now be recalled. One thing may be said, that at least Sir Julius Vogel has not grown rich by parsimoniousness, has not. neglected the social duties of his office in order to put by his ministerial salary ; and if he has created comment by his hospitality, has not, at least, provoked criticism by a style of entertaining approaching to positive meanness.