Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5329, 26 April 1878, Page 4

For some considerable time articles cm the Civil Service of the colony have been published in the Otago Daily I imes. Their author professes to be actuated by a desire to do a public good by fearlessly exposing evils and abuses which he believes exist in Government departments, and it may be that he once had an idea that he would write his views without being swayed by ill-feeling or by friendship. We are willing to believe that he meant well, but wo must take leave to say that his good intentions were not lasting. Many of the sketches have resolved themselves into attacks of a bitter nature, and personal matters have been introduced that would have been passed over in silence by a writer possessed of good taste and actuated by pure motives. Notwithstanding personal attacks and illnatured innuendoes, if the articles had been impartial the writer could have laid claim to the praise willingly awarded to a man who displays ability and courage, and the articles would have had a weight and influence they cannot now possess. It is apparent that the writer is not controlled by a desire to be severely just. In many instances praise and ; censure are so evidently misplaced that no man who has any special knowledge of the subject could have accidentally fallen into such errors. Of course, the author must collect his facts from one or more persona in the service, and the quid pro quo is plainly to be traced in the notice of more than one official. The writer has preserved his anonymity, and he is quite right in doing so, but there are those in the service who say they can name the author and his touters. They may be right; that does not affect our views of the matter, for it is desirable that the subjectshouldbe treated on broad grounds. En passant it will be sufficient to say that those members of the service who have so far offended against all principles of honor and goodfellowship are not likely to have a happy time of it when their identity is established. To attack the Civil Service is generally considered a safe card to play. It has often won the odd trick for a candidate on the hustings, and in various Parliaments it has provided members with material for declamatory harangues. The assailant is free from danger, for the officials must not reply, and he takes a course by which it is easy to secure a name for courage, for fearlessly denouncing wrongs, and for protecting the people from “an army of overpaid and underworked officials”—a well-rounded phrase that has often had to do duty in a bad cause. The immunity from rejoinder which the critic enjoys often tempts him to overstate his case, and this has been done frequentlyinthearticlesin the Otago Daily Times. Possibly the writer has been carried away by a mistaken zeal ; a zeal aroused by false information supplied to him. Whatever may be the cause, the spirit in which a large proportion of the sketches has been written smacks of dislike, or of slights not forgiven, while some might be characterised as being inspired by one prompted by feelings of “envy, hatred, malice, and all unoharitableness.” The publication ofthesearticles in the Otago Daily Times gives them a peculiar significance, for that paper is undeniably the Government organ, and it is no secret that did the Premier but express the slightest dissatisfaction with tiiese literary assaults they would instantly cease to appear. It is a well-known rule in political and journalistic life that the paper specially selected to be the organ of a Ministry speaks the mind of the head of the Government, and the Otago Daily limes is no exception. In its leading columns most unfair and unjust attacks have been made on the senior members of the service, and men as high-minded, as honorable, and as much respected as any in the colony, have been accused of base treachery towards Ministers of the Crown, and of malversation. These wretched accusations appear in the accepted organ of the Government. But in the face of that we venture to assert that every Minister but the Premier would, if challenged in his place in Parliament, admit that he had been faithfully and loyally served by the officers of his department. It is to be hoped that the Premier would do the same. If he should be unable to do so then the question would follow : “ Why have you not got rid of those you cannot trust; why have you not dismissed the treacherous and the grossly incompetent ? ” Indeed that question may be asked now. The conduct of the Premier and his colleagues gives the strongest denial to the charges made by the Otago Daily Times. Those who know Sir George Grey will readily admit that he would not allow himself to be thwarted by the dishonorable conduct of an under-secretary or chief clerk. They would have to go, and very properly so. Ministers will soon assemble in Wellington, and we put it to them whether they are not bound to take one of these courses—either dismiss the offenders, if such exist, or publish a memorandum defending those who are debarred from defending themselves.