The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1884. THE HON. W. ROLLESTON.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1253, 16 October 1884, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1884. THE HON. W. ROLLESTON.

The Lyttelton Times of yesterday handles Mr Rolleston rather roughly. It says ;—“ Mr Rolleston has voted against the West Coast Railway Bill, and Mr Wakefield has done the same ‘ for conscience’ sake.’ Mr Rolleston is acting the part, of the head of a family who, when hard times come, j thinks that economy should begin at home. This typical personage docs not i withdraw his name, from his Club, but i pays his subscription there for ‘ business j reasons.’ For the same reason he docks none of those capital little dinners which he occasionally gives hu-iness friends, nor does he allow Ids personal attire to suffer. Bui lie takes Ids snn away from school, and puts his wife and daughter on short allowance of millinery. For years past, Mr Rolleston has been careful never to breathe a word against expenditure in any part of the colony except Canterbury. Extravagance elsewhere lias been necessary ‘ for business reasons ’ i.e., the security' of the Atkinson Ministry in general and tiie Minister of Lands in particular.” The article then goes on to say he has been liberal to every district excepting Canterbury, and adds “ Perhaps true virtue is not properly appreciated in Canterbury. It certainly is no longer appreciated to the extent of ‘ £1250 per annum and allowances, in Mr Rolleston’s case.” Now, this is in the first place low, and in the second place untrue. It is meanly low to accuse Mr Rolleston of adhering to the Atkinson Ministry for the sake of bis position, and that it is untrue was proved by the chivalrous manner in which lie stood out of the way of Major Atkinson when forming a Ministry recently. Mr Rolleston has consistently opposed all kinds of jobbery, and that is more than the Lyttelton Times has done. We need only direct the attention of the Lyttelton Times to its own article on the District Railway, measure published in last Monday’s issue. It says “As the Bill for the Leasing and Purchase of the District Railways is such a bitter pill, it is just as well that the provisions of the measure should be quite explicit. We have already approved of the object of the Bill, as an unfortunate necessity, that conclusion, the fact—undoubted fact—that several people have put money into their pockets by a transaction which imposes a losing concern on the colony, cannot alter. Neither can this fact get any further power by being altered in its description to read that railways have been forced on the colony by a side wind, which never would have been made m the ordinary straightforward course of tilings.” lu this the Times admits ,£ that several people have put money into their pockets by a transaction which imposes a losing concern on the colony, and that the said railways would never have been made in the or Jinary si raightforward course of things.” An! yet the Lyttelton Times backs up this swindle—for it is nothing else—because its party have brought it forward. It is, it says, *• an unfortunate necessity” to do so. Why should it be a necessity ? Landowners made these railways to increase the value of their lands. Their lands have been increased in value. The landowners have not paid for the construction of these lines, but borrowed the monev from the Government, and now the Government are to make the whole colony pay for this jobbery. Many a dark, disgraceful political job has been carried out m New Zealand, but the worst of them were in Sir Julius Vogel’s time, and he has now returned to crown them all with the District Railways Leasing Act—Swindling Act would have been more appropriate. The beauty ol it, however, is, that while the old District Railways Act is condemned by the new Railways Leasing Act, and no more railways are to be made under it, a iivsh measure embodying exactly the same principle has been introduced, under which to make the line from Christchruch to the West Coast. Why was not the old Act amended, and shareholders in District Railways given further facilities it they required it? We have heard of people throwing out dirty water to get clean water in, but Sir Julius Vogel has pumped out the dirty water of the District Railways only to pump it back again to make the West Coast line. And a dirty job it is from beginning to end, worthy of its author, and the Lyttelton Times may as well say very little about it, for it has a share in the dirty work. We are glad that the Hon. Mr Rolleston has manfully and persistently opposed the disgraceful jugglery of the present Government with regard to these measures. It is true that he is not very popular i n Canterbury at present, because, «s the Lyttelton Times suggests, the virtue of political honesty is not appreciated in Canterbury if it dares to oppose the railway to the West Coast. There is one spot in Canterbury, how- < evvr, which still admires the courage, independence and sterling honesty of Mr Rolleston. and that is the electoral district of Geraldine.