The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1888. THE WAYS OF THE WORLD.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1749, 12 June 1888, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1888. THE WAYS OF THE WORLD.

I am a much-disgusted and distracted mm, beosuae I have had fearful disappointments late>y. When Sir Julias Vogel left the colony I expected he would never return ; that he would, as a matter of course, resign his seat, and that I would be elected in his stead. By all accounts he will soon return. In the same way I had nay eye on Mr Laroach’s seat, but the wanderer has returned, and is now filling it himself, Mr Pyke got sick, but the old sinner recovered,' and now blooms as fresh as a rose. Mr J. C. Brown, of Tuapeka, has been laid up for a week, but lam told he has do notion of dying, and thus no vacancy is occurring to enable me to carry out my scheme. I have a grand scheme formulated if I could only get into that House. It L a scheme based on high authority. Whan Samson wont in amongst the Philistines be palled down the house on them, and killed the who'e lot of them. That is exactly what 1 would do. I would blow up the House with dynamite, rid the country of politicians. Thiis would gain for me immortality, and a marble monument, for I am ,

certain that in few years tny fellowcoloniity would bo able to realise the good I hnd thus done to the country, and perpetuate my name in stone.

My reasons for having resolved to adopt such a deperate measure is as follows In 1885 Sir Ju'iue Vogel brought in a tariff much milder in its protective character than that which is now before the House, and an onslaught whs unde upon it by Sir Harry Atkinson. In 1887 Sir Julius introduced another tariff milder than the present tariff, and on the vote of Sir Harry Atkinson it was thrown out. The result was an appeal to the country,'a general electien, and a return to power of the gallant Sir Harry, and now, after being eight months in power, ho has introduced a

far more protective and a much more oppressive tariff than that which had been rejected on two previous occasions. Colton goods, on whieh Sir Julius Vogel placed only a duty of 6 per cent, Sir Harry proposes to tux at the rate of 25 per cent; agricultural implements, which Sir Julius would have allowed in free, Sir Hurry will tax; salt,' and a great many olher things that have been hitherto free, are now to be taxed from 25 to 50 per cent. Sir Harry know all along that protection was necessary ; he has been preaching it continually for years, yet such was his craving for office that he made use of poor demented beings called freetraders to prevent the adoption of that policy in oirder to expidite bis own return to the Premiership.. He cared nothing for the country evidently ; he had only one object in view, and.;;that was to get back into office. I cannot find the faintest gleam of patriotism of his action ; his ruling passion ia self. He knew very well that he was driving the country to the verge ef ruin when three years ago he opposed the proposals he has now introduced, and he knows now : that had the proposals of 1885 been adopted we should be in a more prosperous position to-day. The man who can thus disregard the public weal is not fit to live, and as there are a great many like him in Parliament that is my reason for coming to the conclusion of dealing with them after the fashion of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Sir Julius Vogel mutt also be got rid of somehow. So long as he lives he will remain a distracting element in politics. One would think that now, when lie is looking after his own business at the other end of the world, our politicians would let him alone, but they will not. There is not a speech in opposition to the tariff in which Sir Julius does not crop up jhst as promiscuously as the head of King Charles in Mr Dick’s memorial. It is no use to explain that ha was nine years away, from the colony ; it is no use to say that Sir Harry Atkinsou borrowed and spent ten times as much as he did ; it ts no use to point out that be was not

allowed to carry out his policy, but was shackled and manacled from the first day ' that he took office to the day he retired from it. All this goes for nothing; he is the cause of ali our misery ; everything is due to his extravagance ; be is the only subject on which a certain claee of pofiticiaes can think. lam of opinion, therefore, that it ie desirable that he should be sacrificed, so that our politicians may think of something else. The averag politician does not think stall, he allows others to do it for him ; but on the whole I have hopes that many would turn their attention to the questions of tbs day, instead of using their brains—l suppose 1 must call them brains—in inventing “ fibs ” about poor Sir Julius.

la Canada. Freetrader* are openly accused of disloyalty, and called in Parliament traitors to their country. That is just the proper way to treat them. How cun Freetraders be called anything else, There are, for instance, now in Parliament men screaming out against the tariff, and the only thing they complain of is that portion of it which is protective. They have no objection to tax the poor mao's tea,,and sat, and rice, and so on ; they do not scruple to see ,his cotton goods taxed; it does not trauble them in the slightest degree what amount of taxation is raised through the Custom bouse, and what burdens the people h.ve to bear, so long as nothing is done to develop the resources of the colony. “ Goods must nut be produced here ; .they must be imported” is the sura, and substance of their creed, and it appears.to me that to call that disloyalty, as they do in Canada, is not going too far,

By all accounts the member for Akaroa has been distinguishing himself. The Auckland Herald accuses him of having used his position as a supporter of the Government to vent bis spite against Mr Baddaley, the late Assistant Resident Magistrate of Auckland. It will be remembered that a short time ago Mr Baddeley was Resident Magistrate in Geraldine,J Ashburton, and Akaroa districts. He was removed to Auckland tome time ago, and now he has had to resign. The inference to be drawn from the Herald’s comment is that Mr McGregor had some illwill against Mr Badde'ey, and that he used his position as a supporter of the Government to damage him. If this is trne I think most men will agree with me that he has been guilty of a low mean action. It is a scandalous shame for a member of Parliament to make use of his position in such a way, and it is really humiliating to feel that we are governed by men capable of listening for one moment to such a man making representations which in the face of them bear the stamp of malice.

I have just received the first copy of a new monthly paper entitled The Dawn, it is published in Sydney, price 3d, in the interests of women, and edited by Dora Falconer, and it has for its objects the advocacy of ‘‘ women’s rights,” and the enlightenment of women on the fashions of the day. .Amongst other things it has ia tersely written and clever article backing up the Divorce Bill, which was passed by the New South Wales Parliament and refused the Royal assent in England, and of course if has a story. For rny own part I think the choice of name is ill-advised. I really do not think that “The Dawn” is a nioa hour for women to bo out advocating an extension of the divorce laws and women’s rights. There was one little bit in it, however, which I liked. Some stupid old fogey, at some public meeting, refsrred to woman as “females,” and ho is reminded that if Lady Oarington had been present the tone of the O.F. would have been different. No doubt it would. Nothing disgusts me more than to hear women

referred to as “females.” It is the height of vulgarity. One bears people say, “There wls a lot of females there,” but no one heard any one say, “ There wa« a lot of "males there." Why should women be referred to as “ females" if men are not to bo distinguished as “ males 1 ” I cannot tell, and I am sure no one else can. Com O’Lands, K.C.M.G.