The Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1892. MR ROLLESTON.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2399, 15 September 1892, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1892. MR ROLLESTON.

Mr Rolleston is evidently in a great fix. He wants to pose as a Liberal and at the same time turn the Liberals out of office. It is an awkward position for a man to be in certainly, and Mr Rolleston no doubt feels it, for after every effort in which he knows he has done wrong, he immediately gets the "Wellington correspondent of the Christchurch Press to interview him, and to this gentleman he explains his reasons for acting as he does. So sure as Mr Rolleston has done wrong, so sure Mali a justification of his actions appaar in the Christchurch Press next day. If Mr Rolleston knew that he is only making bad worse in this way, he no doubt would not figure so frequently in the Press. Everyone knows that the Press is the vilest Conservative publication in New Zealand, and when Mr Rolleston makes that paper his organ, everyone will judge him by the company he keeps. In last Tuesday's issue of that paper, Mr Rolleston makes an attempt to defend the stonewalling of the Land Bill. He says :

••'lts chief effect would be the creation of a number of little town-born political organisations called special settlements, consisting of little knots of people attached to various local members of Parliament, who would be the real promoters of settlements, under the idea that their influence would be paramount with the settlers who might be virtually electioneering organisations on their behalf." Mark the insinuation that it is framed for political purposes ; also the attempt to set the country against the towns, by making it appear that the bill is designed in the interests of townspeople. How often have we heard Mr Rolleston deploring that too many people were congregated in towns, and that what was wanted was to settle them in the country ? How often has he unctuously dilated on the duties of church organisations with regard to these matters, and what they ought to do'? Yet here, when we find the Government taking the matter in hand, and offering special inducements to people to leave the towns and settle in the couutry, Mr Rolleston is stonewalling them. But are these special settlements new'? By no means. They were first instituted by the Hon. John Ballance seven years ago, and if our readers will remember, our late o-overnoi*, the Earl of Onslow, spoke in the highest terms of them. He visited some of them in the North Island, and he was entertained by the settlers, under the shadows of forest trees. The special settlements are practically an extension of the village settlements which Mr Rolleston boasts of having introduced. Thechief difference being that while Mr Rolleston's great Liberal heart throbbed at its own generosity in o-iving the poor a quarter-acre section, the present Government are giving 100 acres. The system is this : Twenty-five or more people (it does not matter whether they are town fir country) form themselves into an association and apply to the Government for Land. The Government immediately set apart- a certain area of land and each of them gets a piece pf it in proportion to his ability to utilise it. If he wants 200 acres lie can get it, if he cannot manage more than o 0 acres that is all he can get and so on. Thus there is a settlement of neighbours, friends and relations forced out in the wiids of the North Island where only, for so many of the people combining together, the land could not be utilised and this is what Mr Rolleston calls " town organisations, attached to various local members of Parliament." The unblushing effrontery of fhis assertion passeth understanding. But let us not forget that it was not over this the stonewalling took place at all; and that it is just now introduced as a red herring drawn across the scent of the one-man-one-run clause. The stone-walling took place over the squatter's clause and Mr Rolleston is trying now to make it appear that it was in the interest of country settlement he

was working. What a subterfuge? Mr Saunders tells us that there are 12 bona fide farmers in Parliament, and that ten of them supports the present Government Mr Rolleston and Mr Lawry being the only two in opposition. We notice that Mr Lawry has voted with the Government several times lately so that Mr Rolleston is practically the only farmer on the Opposition side. This ought to be enough for farmers. The farmers in Parliament know much better than farmers out of it how the present Government is working, and that they are so consistent in their support ought to inspire farmers generally with confidence in the Government.

D. M. ROSS' CASE.

From the Mayoral chair and the Judicial Bench, from being the foremost citizen, and feasted and feted, to the dark and dismal cell in a cheerless prison, is a great fall. This was the fall of David Mitchell Ross, of Timaru, and it appears to us that every one will admit that it was a fall that was richly deserved. Ross was a born thief—a deep-dyed scoundrel, who could not be honest if he had been paid for it. Indeed, looking at the way he carried on business, and the enormous interest he had been paying, it would appear that instead of gaining by dishonesty, he was losing by it. For instance, he was paying interest at the rate of 8 and 10 per cent, for part of the money that built the Arcade property, and yet the rents he was receiving did not give him more than 3 per cent, on his outlay. By his dishonesty, therefore, he was losing considerably, but this does not in the least exonerate him from being one of the most accomplished scoundrels we have heard of. Rich and poor, friend and foe, were all the same to him ; he embezzled the widow's mite as readily as he did the wealthiest of his customers' thousands. Everything he laid hands on he stuck to as long as he could; he was a forger, a swindler, and embezzler, and yet withal he succeeded in escaping detection and deceiving the shrewdest for years. This is most remarkable, as it appears now that he came to Timaru with a terribly bad record. It is all coming out now, and so far as we can learn he had been guilty of many other acts of dishonesty previous to coming to Timaru. But lately all these had been forgotten. Ross was taken in hand by some of the financial lights of Timaru; some of the knowing ones, in whom the public believed as being not only honest, but sharp, and shrewd and clever. These have a great deal to answer for. By their having countenanced and trusted Ross as they did, they in a sort of way gave an assurance to the general public that he could be relied upon, and this no doubt had a great deal to do with the public reposing such implicit confidence in him. However, they themselves were bitten, and if they alone had been victimised few would regret it. Judge Ward, it appears to us, treated him leniently. He could have given him at least 12 months, and we think that he ought not to have shown him any mercy. But probably the Judge expected that Ross would be proceeded against in another Court —indeed he as much as said that he ought—and no doubt that weighed with him. It is, however, doubtful whether any further prosecution will be instituted against him, and if so it must be said that the punishment was not commensurate with the degree of criminality of which he was proved guilty.