THE Temuka Leader. Tuesday, September i, 1891. PARLIAMENTARY TROUBLES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2248, 1 September 1891, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. Tuesday, September i, 1891. PARLIAMENTARY TROUBLES.

Very serious trouble has taken place in Parliament, It is very regrettable that we cannot get a calm, dispassionate statement of facts concerning it. Instead, we have nothing but ex parte statements, in which one side endeavors to throw all the blame on the other. From reading the Press and Otago Daily Times one would infer that the Ministry behaved very badly, but from other sources we get a different view of the matter. It is a great pity that men cannot put aside party animus in cases like this, and treat the matter in an honorable and manly way. So far as we can gather, the Hon. John McKenzie returned to the House after a week’s illness, and was endeavoring to get the Land Bill, of which he has charge, through the House, Since Parliament met, and indeed, since he took office, Mr McKeime has been made the target fop most violent attacks. First, Mr Spence, the dismissed land commissioner for Southland, was put up to vilify and slander him, brff he very soon demolished him. v Next, a dis? missed Southland clerk in the columns of the Otago Daily Times made certain charges against him, biff Mr McKenzie proved they were false. He was next attacked by Mr Richardson (the late Minister of Lands), with the result that the latter got more than he bargained for. He was attacked by Mr Fergus, Mr Valentine, 1

and by others, but he always succeeded in giving each and all of them a Roland for an Oliver. Smarting under all these unjust attacks made upon him, and no doubt enfeebled by his week’s illness, Mr McKenzie replied to another attack made on him by Mr Richardson in the House last Wednesday night, or, rather, somewhere about 3 o’clock on Thursday morning. In the course of his reply he said that the late Hon. Robert Campbell had said in conversation with someone that he (the Hon. R. Campbell) had “ squared it” with the Minister (meaning Mr Richardson.) Of course a demand was made on Mr McKenzie to withdraw the accusation, and he did so, and there the matter ended for the time being. Next day, however, as soon as the House met, Mr Richardson moved for a Committee to enquire into the charges made against him, but the Government party held that the charges had been withdrawn, and that therefore there was no necessity for appointing a Committee to inquire into them, and out of this arose the whole trouble. Looking at this calmly, and without any regard to parties, we must say the charge made against Mr Richardson is capable of very serious construction. Did Mr McKenzie mean by the words “squared it” that Mr Richasdson took a bribe ? Mr McKenzie asserted that he did not. If he did, most undoubtedly the charge was one of the gravest kind, and Mr Richardson was justified in demanding an investigation. On the other hand, if Mr McKenzie only meant that Mr Richardson allowed himself to be talked over and influenced by the Hon. Robert Campbell, then it is nothing more nor less thaan what has been said hundreds of times for the past couple of years. It has been said inside Parliament and out of it, in the press and on the platform, that Mr Richardson was guilty of serious wrongdoing in connection with runS'22B and 228 a. These runs are situated in the Oamaru district; they were advertised to be put up for auction, but on the evening before they were put up Mr Richardson telegraphed that they were withdrawn, and then it was found that the Hon. Robert Campbell, who had just returned from Wellington, had been granted a lease of them. The matter was brought up in Parliament, and Mr Richardson was severely brought to task for it, and the only excuse he had for doing this was that he made a mistake and sent the wrong telegram. It has been said frequently since that the Hon. Robert Campbell “ squared it ” with Mr Richardson, but no one has hinted that Mr Richardson received a bribe, and we hope no one ever will. At the same time, Mr Richardson’s action was really outrageous, and is no wonder that it excited comment. The Hon. Robert Campbell at this time had twentythree runs, and notwithstanding that the people of Oamaru were demanding that runs 228 and 228 a should be cut up, Mr Richardsop handed them over to the Hon. Robert Campbell, his excuse being that he made a mistake. We certainly should be very sorry to see Mr Richardson accused of having been bribed, unless it could be conclusively proved, but further than that we have no sympathy with him. His actions in connection with these runs was really disgraceful, and no language could be too strong in his condemnation.

MR BRYCE’S PETULANCE. Out of the trouble with Mr Richardson rose the most childish exhibition lof petulance ever Avitnessed in the 1 House, The Premier said that Mr McKenzie having withdrawn his charge against Mr Richardson, the charge no longer existed. Mr Bryce jumped up, and said the Premier ought to be ashamed of himself. The Premier moved that the words be taken down, and on Mr Bryce being called upon to withdraw them he refused to do so, with the result that a terrible scene ended in a very mild censure being passed on Mr Bryce for defying the authority of the chair. Now, here comes in the fine discriminating capabilities of the Opposition members : Mr McKenzie withdrew the charge against Mr Richardson when called upon to do so; Mr Bryce refused to withdraw, and thus defied the authority of the chair. Yet the Opposition see no wrong in Mr Bryce’s action, while Mr McKenzie is painted in very sombre colors by them. They wanted Mr McKenzie to apologise a second time, and Mr McKenzie says he is not going on his knees to them, but they have backed up Mr Bryce in his petulance. It is a pity that men will sink their sense of justice and fair play in party interests. Mr Bryce’s action is simply childish, Because the motion censuring him was carried he left the House expressing doubt as to whether he would ever again re-enter it, and he has kept his friends in a terrible state of anxiety lest he should not return. Now, is not this terribly absurd that he should make so much noise about nothing at all, especially when he himself was prliaarjjy to blame ?

PRISON LABOR; There is one point on which avo are not in sympathy with what is frequently put forth as the interests of ivorking men. It has been very often urged that it is Avrong to employ prisoners on Avprk Avhich could be done by free

workmen, as in this way, free workmen are deprived of the means of earning a livelihood. We do not agree with this. In our opinion prison labor ought to be ntilised to the fullest possible extent. Prisoners have to be supported out of public funds, and it is only right that they should be made to work so as to recoup to the Commonwealth at least a portion of the cost of their maintenance. Indeed, we cannot see why their labor should not pay for their support, and we have no doubt it would if properly utilised. It is therefore only right and proper that the state should avail itself of such labor and utilise it, but then what is to become of the working men who are thus deprived of the means of earning a livelihood? The simple answer is that no man ought to be idle, and that the state ought to see that all persons willing to work are found employment, There is no man on earth who occupies a more miserable position than a working man, with a starving family, who is willing to work but cannot get any to do. No such persons ought to exist, but though perhaps not very numerous in this colony there are thousands of them in the old countries. It is a disgrace to our civilisation that this is so, but the question of prison labor is not unsolved. Prisoners, at any rate, ought to be kept at work, and if any class is to be maintained in idleness out of public money, let it be the honest class. Let the rogues, thieves, and robbers, be made to work, at any rate, as in addition to contributing something towards the cost of their own maintenance they will also be trained to earn their living after they get out of gaol.