The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JANUARY 14, 1888. MINISTERIAL EXTRAVAGANCE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1686, 14 January 1888, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JANUARY 14, 1888. MINISTERIAL EXTRAVAGANCE.

During the late election the chief, and, in fact, the only, charge against the Stout-Togel Ministry was that they were personally extravagant. Amongst those who were the most vehement in their denunciations of the Stout-Yogel Government on this head was the Otago Daily Times and its henchman, Mr Scobie Mackenzie. The latter characterised the late Administration as a band of political marauders that used to go out on filibustering expeditions and come home laden with spoil. r Jhe Otago Daily Times now, alas! finds the present Ministry just as venal as their predecessors. The Times says: “ The public will be surprised to hear of the arrival in Dunedin of the Minister of Education and Secretary. In the innocence of our minds we had supposed that private secretaries (except for the Premier) had been dispensed with by the new Ministers along with other relics of the luxurious age, but the accompaniment of the Minister of Education by a Private Secretary leads to the belief that these offices have been maintained by most of the Ministers, and upon inquiry we find that this is actually the case, though none of the members acquainted with the fact have taken the trouble to call attention to the abuse. This is a pretty way of setting about retrenchment! We have no hesitation in saying—and we have more than once heard the opinion endorsed by exCabinet Ministers—that there is rarely any necessity for any Minister, except the Premier, to have a Private Secretary." It goes on to say“ The retention of secretaries by the present Ministers becomes the more to be blamed when we remember that their individual duties are comparatively small whem compared with the late Government, owing to the weight of their burdens being placed on the shoulders of the Premier and to their policy being of a less enterprising character, the object aimed at being to limit their functions rather than to increase them. Sir Robert Stout took the Premiership and the AttorneyGeneralship as well as the Education department. It is, then, a little too much that the country should be asked to pay for a Private Secretary for Mr Fisher when he can give nearly his whole time to the Education department." Alas! we have not got rid of the political marauders. Poor Otago Daily Times! poor Scobie Mackenzie! Was it for this that you concocted so many lies during the late election? This, however, has a funny side. The Christchurch Press explains the whole thing as Mows: “ The editor of Times wrote a private note to Mr Fisher enquiring whether he was travelling at the public expense, and if he employed a Private Secretary. Mr Fisher either treated the communication with contempt or had forgotten its existence, but certainly no reply was vouchsafed, and the Times yesterday morning came out with a very strongly-worded leaderette denouncing the Minister and his extravagance, and attacking his Secretary. Thesemi-officialexplanation of this matter is that the Minister of Education is paying a holiday visit to this city. Surely after a »es»ioa of Parliament, a general election, and another very laborious session, a week’s holiday cannot be grudged to a Minister of the Crown before the Cabinet takes up the important questions of retrenchment of the public expenditure and readjustment of taxation, Mr Amelins Smith is not-

being exclusively retained as Private Secretary to the Minister, as the article implies. He draws his salary for administering the Local Bodies Finance and Local Bodies Powers Act under the direction of the Colonial Treasurer, a position for which he was selected owing to his special qualifications for the office, and he only gets an additional £SO per annum as Secretary to the Minister of Education. The public generally will, from this short statement .of the ; facts, which were easily obtainable, be able, to say how far the Times’ strictures are deserved ” This semi-official explanation savors more of the fool than the rogue. We do not remember coming across anything so peurile and silly. The Minister is on a holiday , visit to Dunedin, and he is accompanied by a Private Secretary. Goodness gracious! What would he have been accompanied by had he been on business? If he carries his Private Secretary about with him when on a holiday trip, he doubtless will take all the officers of his department with him if he ever goes to work anywhere. The excuse is that his Secretary administers the Local Bodies Finance and Powers Act besides being Secretary. Tremendous work this! Just see that the claims of local bodies for subsidies are in proper order!—That is all. But suppose that the office requires the Secretary’s attention, why is he not attending to it ? And then the Press says at the tail] end of its explanation that these facts were easily obtainable, while it starts by stating that when the editor of the Otago Daily Times applied to Mr Fisher for it, he was treated with contempt. The Press must surely have lost its head. Nothing more simple and childish than this explanation could possibly have been conceived, notwithstanding that it was supplied semi-officially, but probably it is the best that could be given. After all, then, this is how retrenchment is to be carried out.

•’THE AQENT-QENERAL.

The Otago Daily Times, in its leading article of yesterday, says that Sir F. D. Bell’s term of office as Agent* General is now drawing to a close, and suggests the advisability of appointing Sir Robert Stout as his successor. It urges upon the Government to throw aside all petty considerations and do the best for the colony, and argues that nothing better could be done than send Sir Robert Stout Home as Agent-General. This is really extraordinary. Three months ago the Times was denouncing Sir Robert Stout as one of a band of marauders who used to go out on filibustering expeditions and come home laden with spoil. Sir Robert was, according to the Times, the most corrupt and the most dangerous man in New Zealand three months ago, now he is the only man we have fit to represent this colony as AgentGeneral, The poor dupes who believed the lies of the Times, three months ago will doubtless > have their eyes opened by this. They will naturally ask themselves, ‘.‘lf Sir Robert Stout was such A bad man as he was painted three months he must be so still, and if he is so still is it not strange that the Ot»fo Daily Times is desirous of giving him the Agent-Generalship ? " and doubtless they will conclude that Sir Robert could not have been half so bad as represented by the Times, and fiel that they Were duped. It is certainly amusing to read the Times’ fulsome laudations of the man whom it used to abuse in such a villainous way - a few months ago, but of course it is very easy to see through what it is aiming at, It is—and doubtless a great many others of the same shade of politics are —desirous of getting Sir Robert Stout out of the colony by some means. They spread the report during last election that he was going to Melbourne, but' he has not gone, and he has no intentionof going,and we do not hesitate to say that be will not accept the position of Agent-General either. There can be very little doubt but that they wauld be glad to get him to do so, and thus get him out of the way, but Sir Robert Stout will not desert the Liberal party for such a mess of pottage. The ways of the Times, and those who inspire it, are strange and wonderful.