South Canterbury Times, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1880.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2309, 11 August 1880, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1880.

The Honorable Mr Oliver is, at this moment, the best abused man in the Cabinet. He has delivered, on behalf of the Government of which he is a prominent member, a Public Works Statement, which, if ’editorial opinion is a safe criterion, has given universal offence. Judging from these doleful lamentations and denuciations, he has pleased nobody and he has insulted everybody. The Opposition and Ministerial Press arc almost unanimous in voting Mr Oliver a failure. There has been plenty of miserable, childish party quarrelling, a great deal of absolute waste of time, and it is well perhaps that there should be something on which Minisstcrial supporters and Oppositionists can concentrate their mutual hate. When the ship is in distress a convenient Jonah is a perfect God-scnd. The benevolent whale may not be in readiness, but the useful atoning sacrifice is there. Sir George Grey was the Jonah of the late Macandrew-cum-Ballance party. When they pitched’him overboard there was no convenient whale. The sacrifice was made to appease the voracious freshwater fish which inhabits, out of session, the deep waters of the Ounstan. As might have been expected the result was not satisfactory, for when Sir George disappeared his betrayers were overwhelmed with the confusion of defeat — a defeat so serious that they have never been able since to gather the wreck together.

But what is the cause of all this merciless criticism ? How is it that the Public Works Statement has elicited so much, disapprobation ? The cause, we think, is obvious. lu the years of the past, the people (particularly the editorial position) have been accustomed, in the Minister of Public Works,to find a good trumpeter. In other respects, he may have been a mere charlatan, or veritable humbug, but in the art of touting he has always endeavored to excel the efforts of his predecessors. The music may have been perfectly meaningless, hut the annual blast was always impressive. Now it happens that Mr Oliver has graduated in a hard, honest, practical school, and although well up in more useful rudiments, he is not a good trumpeter. He generall} says what he means, calls a spade a spade, and uses his own judgment. He has the courage of Ids opinions, and he is perhaps too careless about whether they give offence or not, and ho disdains blowing. He is a conscientious and scrupulous performer, but a cautious promiser, and this is the secret of much of the mud, which his chivalric friends are pelting at him. Of course wo have a pretty fair idea whore all this mud will ultimately stick.

Mr Oliver has been asked to do impossibilities. The Railway Commissioners have presented him with a very nicely arranged and attractive programme of public works, to execute which would involve the expenditure of nearly seven millions. Mr Oliver, like Barkis, “is willin’,’ 1 and he smiles benignly on the proposal, but in the language of the canny member for Waikouaiti, he asks where is the money to come from?” He has sketched out a few of the most necessary works and made provision for them, but beyond this ho refuses to go. One of his particular crimes is that he has refused to be absolutely controlled and directed by the Railway Commissioners. He has refused, at their bidding, to sacrifice the Otago central railway, and this is one of the strongest indictments brought against him. Now, unless it is to gratify an insane and stupid animus, the people of Canterbury and their representatives can have no possible interest in the perpetration of an injustice against Otago. If the missile banded by the Commissioners were used by the Ministry against Otago, it would, we presume, ultimately lead to reprisals. If the provinces are to be thoroughly opened up for settlement, it must be by means of arterial lines radiating from the commercial centres. The condemnation of the Otago central line, like that of the defective railway wagons, owes its origin obviously to a desire on the part of ministerial advisers to spite Dunedin. Mr Oliver is a representative of Dunedin and while, as a Minister of the Crown, be may be expected to deal with public works from a colonial point of view, lie can scarcely be expected to inflict a dastardly blow on bis constituents. For this is really what ho was invited to do. That he has refused, we think, should redound to his credit, instead of exposing him to merciless opprobium. We use the term “merciless” advisedly. If ever a Minister of the Crown in New Zealand deserved generous treatment it is Mr Oliver. He is, we believe, the only Minister of the present Cabinet who is raw to office. He has not had the experience of the Colonial Treasurer, Major Atkinson, or the AttorneyGeneral, Mr Whitaker. He has not been kicked out of office repeatedly, nor has he bored his way to a portfolio by a convenient side entrance. As a proof that his statement is not exactly the lamentable failure which his detractors would have it, they had to find fault with the complimentary reference which Mr Oliver makes to an enterprising gentleman in the north who has been doing a national work at his own cost — snagging the Thames river. This is captious criticism. Had Mr Oliver been abusive instead of complimentary; bad he travelled out of his way to

attack Mr Macandrew, his predecessor, instead of speaking a well deserved word of praise for Mr Frith, there would have been a chorus of cheers from at least one side of the House. But Mr Oliver was placed in a difficulty. He was asked by the Eailway Commissioners to reproduce the miracle of the loaves and fishes. As Mr Driver tersely put it, he had to spread a small quaiitity of butter over a large quantity of bread. Not being a conjuror or a humbug, he did not attempt impossibilities. He did not promise a road to the moon nor a railway to the sun, nor did he stab Otago in a vital part by virtually abandoning the central railway. Had ho so far pandered to the Commissioners, the Otago members, in defence of their rights, would have been compelled to offer a compact and united resistance, and possibly to resort to stonewalling tactics. Besides, there is no telling how soon Canterbury’s turn might have come, and the the injury done to Otago might be repaid with interest. Mr Oliver has acted with discretion ; we may not be able to approve of his statement in every part, and we admit that we disagree with him as to his mode of making the railways reproductive ; but we consider his statement if not exactly prose-poetry, nor embellished with visonary absurdities, is plain, practical, and honest to a degree that makes it a vast improvement on the Public Works Statements with which the people of New Zealand have been accustomed, since the days of.-ihe high-faluting Sir Julius Vogel, to be annually deceived.