THE Temuka Leader THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1892. THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2411, 13 October 1892, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1892. THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL.

The Postmaster-General works without pay. A salary was voted to him by the House, but as it was not provided by law, in the same way as the salaries of other ministers, he refused to take it. But to Mr Ward the terms “ cheap andnasty” cannot apply. We doubt if any minister has ever rendered better service to the colony than he has during his couple of years of office. Men of all shades of opinion have frequently borne testimony to the excellence of his administrative capabilities, but we really had no idea that he had effected such immense saving in his department as he has until we read the report of a debate on the Post and Telegraph estimates in Hansard No. 26. From this we gather that by a system of guarantee which he has inaugurated, he has succeeded in getting the cable rates to England reduced from 10s 2d to 5s 3d per word and the rates to other colonies from 9s 6d to 3s per ten words, and each subsequent word from one shilling to five pence. To us in a rural district like this cable rates are not very important, but to merchants in the cities the reduction will be a great boon. Not only that, but previously New Zealand was paying for what was known as the duplicate cable, but Mr Ward has changed that, and_ thus effected a saving of between £SOOO and £6OOO a year. Then the cable in Cook’s Straits broke, and there was a difficulty in obtaining a cable repairing vessel. Mr Ward bought a vessel, fitted her up, and by that means had the cable repaired at a cost of £6,521. If instead of doing this he had hired a vessel from the Eastern Telegraph Company it would have cost £7OOO moie. He therefore, saved £7OOO there, and has the vessel ready for future use into the bargain. Then ns regards the savings effected in carrying mails by sea he gave the following figures showing the amount paid for the last seven years . Van,. Amount Paid 18<U ... £56,280 iSS .. 65,333 i 886::: ::: ... iqq7 ... 56,447 la*::: ::: ... 1889 47,8/4 1890 - 33 > %3 iSQi ... 38 ,142 0 2 ;;; ;;; 30,000 Thus he has reduced the cost of carrying mails by sea by as compared with what was paid in 1880, all these figures will be found in Hansard 26, pages 187-8. This we think is a record of which any man "light be proud, yet Mr Ward was violently attacked by Mr Duthie and others, becamJS mails were ”?* co ?' veyed along the coast expeditiously as they thought they ought to no less a person than Sir John llan spoke more or less approvingly of Mr Ward’s administration, so we may rest satisfied, that there was not much to complain of. Mr Duthie who attacked him, and assumed as Mr Ward said the role of “ Castigator-General of the Postmaster-General,” admitted that the saving was somewhere between £50.000 and £21,000. Such an admission from a bitter opponent is valuable as placing the truth as regards the saving effected, beyond dispute. And tliis is the man who has no salary, and who pays for his own telegrams, and his own railway fare when mi his own private business. Putting all party bias aside, and looking at Mr Ward’s actions honestly and without prejudice, we think that any fairminded man must admit that he is singularly generous, disinterested, and patriotic. If ever a labourer was worthy of his hire Mr Ward is, and it is noticeable that those who have at£mked him are the most mercenary of all ih e members of the House. No doubt they do not like him. The contrast shows them£ e l ves 10 glaring a light and thuS 6rOU seS ™ eir envy and illwill. But, Mr Warn can afford to despise them. The country must recognise the splendid services he has rendered, and his name will he revered when those of his traducers will be contemned.

WOMAN SUFFRAGE. Tin: resolution passed by the few who attended the Alliance meeting at Tenmka last Monday evening was very ill adviseed. There is no evidence of treachery on the part of the Government. They adopted the female franchise against the wishes of a large number of their own supporters : they sent it to the Legislative Council, and when the Tory members of that body brought forward amendments which would destroy the secrecy of the ballot Sir Patrick Buckley warned them that the Government would never accept them. If the Government wished to destroy it would Sir P. Buckley do this? Would he not have been very glad of the loop-hole? The Council insisted on these innovations, and three times the Government appointed managers to try to get them modified. Even the Government sent as one of the managers Sir John Hall himself, but all failed. Let us see exactly what has been done. The Government, against the wishes of the majority of their own supporter?, sacrificed tfceif

pet measure, the Electoral Bill, last year for the sake of the women’s franchise. Will anyone believe that the present Government do not want the one-mau-one-vote and the one-man-one-roll in the Electoral Bill become law V yet they could have carried this last year and this year also only that they sacrificed it to the women’s franchise. The Government know that it Is on the one-man-one-roll their existence depends; they know that plural voting is killing to them. Why then, if they were not sincere, did they sacrifice the measure that would ensure them a majority at the next election ? Are they such fools as to go out of their way to cut their own throats ? They have repeated the same thing this year ; they have again sacrificed the Electoral Bill to the women’s franchise, and their thanks are accusations of treachery, because, forsooth, they did not consent to put into the hands of their opponents a power that would enable them not only to tamper with their servants votes, but would also give them facilities for roll-stuffing impersonations and all kinds of corruption. So far as we can see the Government did all they could for it, but the Legislative Council did all they could against it, yet the Council is praised and the Government accused of treachery. Where is the evidence of it ? They deny it themselves. and an immense majority of the House believes them. We think thei’e is more evidence to prove that Mr Walker is anxious to injure the present Government, than that the Government was indifferent on this question. His predecessor, Mr Glover, had a weakness in the same direction. He was everlastingly interfering in politics, and always to the detriment of the Liberal Party, Supposing we said Messrs Walker and Glover were agents for creating an ill-feeling against the Liberal party, have we not evidence of it in their own actions ? But we take a more charitable view of their conduct, and attribute it to bad taste and bad judgment. The short facts are these : Ist—Several members of the present Government have voted for woman suffrage for years ? 2nd—The Government took the matter in hand to help Sir John Hall with it, much to the annoyance of many of their own followers ? 3rd—They sacrificed their pet measure, the Electoral Bill, sooner than drop the Female Franchise clause, for if they had dropped that the remainder of Bill would have passed, 4th—They passed the measure, and sent it to the Upper House, How did they know that the Upper House would not pass it ? It has been whispered that the Government asked the members of the Upper House to reject it. The only friend the Government have in the Upper House is Sir Patrick Buckley, and he voted for it. Will anyone believe the story that the Government asked the Upper House to reject it, when it is remembered that the Upper House is violently opposed to them, and would do all that they could to harass the present Government. The very fact that the Government desired it to be thrown out would have been just the reason why the Upper House would have passed it. There is no sense in saying that the Government went to their enemies to help them to destroy the measure. It is bosh, and when the tiling comes to be properly considered, and reasoned odt. we are of opinion that the great majority of the people will admit that it was better to throw the measure out than allow it to pass in a form that would have destroyed the secrecy of the ballot, and opened the door to roll-stuffing, corrUptiu 1 ;;, ■i md impersonation.