The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1888. MINISTERIAL MEANNESS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1811, 3 November 1888, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1888. MINISTERIAL MEANNESS.

Pebsons in high place? are capable of very mean actions sometimes. An instance of this has occurred in Oamaru. The Government some time ago invited applications for the position of a property tax valuer for a district in the country immediately outside Oamaru, and amongst those who applied was Mr J. Church, an old and highly-respected resident of the town. There were altogether three applicants, and out of these the County Council, who appear to have been consulted, selected Mr Church, j and recommended him, but to the great astonishment of people in that part of the county he was rejected, and a man who had not applied at all was appointed. Mr Church, on learning this, naturally concluded that Mr Sperrey, the property tax commissioner, had been guilty of gross favoritism, and wrote to the Premier, Sir H. A. Atkinson, calling his attention to the injustice done him. After a month's delay Mr Church received a reply to the effect that Mr Sperrey was not to blame, as the appointment had been j made by Mioiste themselves, and |

tnat he had been rejected because he had been a candidate for Parliament at the last election, and consequently ineligible for the position. Mr Church, on receipt of this, addressed a reply to the Premier through the medium of the North Otago Times, and it is from this we gather our information. The reply is vigorous, and makes it quite plain that in the selection of the valuer the Government were actuated by motives less worthy than the public good. He pointed out first that it was the Borough of Oamaru he contested, and that consequently he could not be influenced by any political leanings in the country district, for the valuation of which he had applied, j Secondly, that Mr W. N. S. Roberts had been a candidate for Parliament, i and yet he was appointed valuer for j Oamaru, Thirdly, that Mr John! Reid, of Elderslie, had been a candidate, and yet he was appointed a member of the Board of Reviewers under the property tax, by which the values of properties are finally decided after the valuers have done with thena. Fourthly, that the Hon. Mr Miller, a member of the Upper House, was a member of the Board of Reviewers. This is really crushing. Mr Church was rejected because be was a candidate for Parliament over 12 months ago, Mr Roberts has been appointed although guilty of a similar crime, while Mr Reid, also equally culpable, is placed in tie still higher position of a member of the Board of Reviewers. Mr Church was fortunate in being able to point out in his own locality instances like these. They render his argument utterly unanswerable, and imprint on the administration of Sir H. A. Atkinson the indelible brand of partiality. The whole thing is therefore rendered quite plain. Mr Hislop, one of the present Government, is member for Oamaru, and Mr Church was one of the candidates who opposed him last election. In this, in our opinion, will be found the explanation of the rejection of Mr Church, and it is not very creditable to those concerned. It exhibits a degree of meanness to the depth of which men of more generous impulses will not easily believe that human nature is capable of descending. But so it is, for surely no sane man could really and honestly believe that because a man happened to have been twelve months ago a candidate for Parliament for a certain district he is now unfit to perform the duties of property tax valuer in another district. Such a theory is monstrous, and those who have given it as an explanation of their actions in the hope, no doubt, that it will be believed, must really think that the public entertain a very low opinion of human nature. But after all it is not surprising that the men who have resorted to such contemptible means to injure a political opponent should have a very low opinion of human nature : that is, if they measure it by their own bushel. It is only natural that they should think that all men are just as corrupt and as liable to be influenced by political considerations as they are themselves. The public, however, will not believe it. None but a fool could believe it, for it is the most silly explanation a Government has ever given. If the fact of having been a candidate makes such, a scoundrel of a man, what would he have become had he been elected ? And, oh! ye gods, what degree of infamy and villainy would he not reach if he should become a Minister of the Crown ? The Premier and his colleague* doubtless know. The rejection of Mr Church is a very small matter from a public point of view, but the dictum that he is unfit by reason of having been a candidate for Parliament is a matter of wider importance. It was Solomon, we believe, who said that all men are liars; it is the present Government who now say that all politicians are scoundrels, by implying that the moment one becomes a candidate for Parliament he ceases to be honest. Their reply to Mr Church is capable of no other interpretation. If a man is unfit to be a property tax valuer he certainly is unfit to b 6 a Justice of the Peace, or a judge of pigs at a cattle show, yet it is said that the present Government want all members of Parliament to be Justices of the Peace. If the dictum of the Government is correct they are unfit for it, or of filling any position which requires of them to be impartial and honest, for surely if a rejected candidate could be guilty of partiality and and favoritism, in the hope of being elected at some future time, the elected member cannot be laid to be more independent of public good will. The logical conclusion deducible from the ministerial dictum, therefore, is that all politicians are completely depraved, and that they ought to be regarded as social lepers whom no one ought to trust* Will Sir Harry A. Atkinson and his ministers ask the public to place implicit confidence in themselves if the fact of having been a candidate destroys all sense of justice, honesty, and fair dealing in man ? Surely not J Surely they cannot hope to re'tain public confidence after having given it forth to the world that to dream of politics has such a demoralising influence on human nature. Surely they must see that by their explanation to Mr Church they cast a slur on every member of the Hou»e, and lowered politics to a degraded level. But no one will belieye them. They rejected Mr Chmrch

in order to wreak vengeance on a political opponent, and that is the truth. Contempt on such men. "I bad rather be a dog, and baj the moon, Thau such a Roman." It is one of the dirtiest, meanest, lowest actions of which a Government has ever been guilty, and only meanspirited, I little-minded, pettifogging men could do such small things. And yet this is the Government that represents capitalists, banks, and moneylenders, and are supported by the representatives of that class in the House. If they can do such petty things openly, what cannot be done privately? No one knows, and no one will ever know, so it is useless discussing it.