THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1877.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2521, 3 February 1877, Page 2

THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1877.

We on Thursday referred. to : the speech delivered, by Dr. Wallis at Morningside. It has always been a moot point whether .or not it is well for clergymen to mix themselves upj with politics, and the answer iasl in three; cases out of four, been that it would be better for them to refrain from these things and let them alone, as by identify* ing themselves either with one side or the other, no matter whether the side they adhere to be in the right or the wrong, they impair their sphere of usefulness by making enemies of those who think not as.they, think. Of course a clergyman has as much right td his political views as any one else, and should and ought to vote as his conscience dictates, or as his reason tells him is best. It is not

this that is objected vto, it is his mixing himself up with all the dodgery find chicanery of the political worldj and instead of being merely a silent supporter becoming a warm--perhaps too warm—' a partizan. We said on Thursday that Dr. Wallig had divided his lecture into three heads ; the first of these—the question of separation—we dealt with. The other two arc (1) The hanging up of the Counties Act. (2) The greed of our public men and .th.-ir want of principle. Dr. vYallis in sp-uking'ou the first of these two heads—the hanging up of the Counties Act —b -gins with an assertion which, like other similar phrases, such as "it is evident," &c, is,.according to an-eminent writer of the present day, but a synonymous phrase for the words, " I can't prove it." He says, in speaking of the reasons why the Act should be hung up, " that it is acknowledged to be imperfect, bristling all over with blunders and contradictions." The Act may not be as j perfect as could be desired—few things ' are so, but it certainly does not deserve the harsh epithets bestowed upon it by Dr. Wallis. Of course, as most men know, the effect of "hanging up" the I Act, as it is called —that is, not allowing some of' its clauses to come into effect, which any county can do by availing i themselves of the permissive clauses —is 1 to change the whole character of the County Council, and instead of having them an executive body to will and do as they think best, to have a mere distributive body' to portion out the Government subsidies for the Local Boards to expend as they • think fit. In other words, to become sort of paymasters to pay money to , others, but no part of whoso business is 1 it to enquire into the expenditure, or ad--1 vise objects of expense. Whether this is a satisfactory position for a body like a J County Council to be placed in may be a i matter of. opinion. We think not. Dr. j Wallis thinks it would be, giving; as we I have said, for the first of his reasons the j assertion above quoted, that the Act is 1 bristling with blunders and imper* I fections. He goes on to say, as | another reason for " hanging up" the Act, thatitmust b? improved next session. Surely if it be improved under some such form as " The Counties Act Amended Act," orwhatever title it will go by—and Dr Wallis tells us this must be-the case— we shall receive whatever benefits the j amended form may bestow, whether the County Council be executive or merely distributive. Branching off into his Becond head.of objections to bringing the Act into force, Dr Wallis characterises the adoption of the Act not only as a leap in thedark,but "aleapinto abogof officialism and expense," and yet the wording of the Act seems sufficiently clear to prevent its adoption being termed a leap in the dark;, as to the officialism and expense if there are works' to be done—-and that, there are, not only -in this- place but all over If ew Zealand, few will deny—there must be officers to see that they are properly carried out, and these must, as is only right, be paid for their time and trouble, just as Dr Wallis is paid for his. Is it to these officers and salaries that, he alludes, when he talks so vaguely of officialism and;expense? It is quite evident that Dr Wallis has not a very great- opinion of the councillors elected, as he says that one of the objections to the adoption&f the Act' is that they (the Councillors) will be,.able to create for themselves much unnecessary business, im- ■ pose additional taxes,. and borrow a year's rates from the banks. He certainly by these inuendoes does not think that patriotism and. the honors pertaining to a County Councillor go hand in* hand, or it may be he acts on principle, and does not like to lead even councillors. into temptation. His next reason for hanging up the Act is that by so doing we forfeit nothing, at the same time he does not show that we gain anything. The fact is, that the whole Act was meant to bo brought into force unless it was deemed advantageous to suspend part of it. The onus' then of showing that such suspension is advantageous, rests on those who would suspend it, and this Dr Wallis signally fails to do,-except by assertions- and implied, self-interest. We repeat .that if the .Act be amended, then whether. hung up or not,, all alike will get the benefit of it, and why until such amendment takes place we should forego such'good results as may be gathered from the adoption, of the Act as it is we fail to see, neither has Dr Wallis convinced us in' the degree concerning ifc. It will,, or may perhaps- have been ob-

served, that in his extraordinary speech, on New Zealand politics Dr Wallis commenced with what concerned the whole, and in telescopic fashion, narrowed his subject down (o the County system, and then again to his third and last part; the " greed of the public men and their want of moral principle." It is true Dr Wallis does not descend to personalities, but he attacks the offices of the Council, and by implication^ those* who 'fill them. The. chief head and front of the offending appears to be that the chairman of the County receives a salary: The first reason given why he should not receive one, is that the Councillor receiving one "would be not representing but misrepresenting the ratepayers." How so.? Has Dr Wallis so low an opinion of human nature in the abstract that he considers that the payment of say—as in our own , case — £200 a year to a man for. wqrk,done causes him to work wrongly, whereas, without payment, he would work rightly ?. Or, to put it otherwise, he would be induced by the money to act contrary to what he thought right ? We cantiot.think Dr Wallis meant to say this,; and yet this is the English of his speech as reported. Dr Wallis must remember that; the office of Chairman is no sinecure; there is much to be done which, involves; time, some expense, and physical fatigue, and though. we would be loth-to' see the salary fixed at such a sum as to make it an object ipo.be at merely on account of the salary it brought with it, we would wish to-sec such a sum attached as would.-fairly reimburse the Chairman for his time and trouble. We can easily understand that if this is riot the ease» here and there a goo-d man might be lost to his County simply because he could not afford to work for nothing:' Oh the other hand there is no need for the Chairman to receive the salary if he can do without it; or in the case where a wealthy maa was to be elected, the Councillors might fix the salary at a merely nominal sum. „Dr Wallis then proceeds to deal with " oughts," saying that the Chairman ought to be above accepting payment — ought to be above being the hired servant of" the Council. Remarks very good in theory, but not so satisfactory - when reduced to practice, for unfortunately everything is not as it ought to be. in this world,;and from our nursery days upwards wo were instructed that " ought" went for nothing. Then Dr. Wallis indulges in a paradox; he says a paid chairman must be elected not for his merits, but. for the length of his ,purse, whereas it would seem as if the very opposite were the case, for there might be; a man of merit but no means who, unpaid, could not afford to be chairman, and there might be a man of means but no merit who could afford to be chairman, even though he did not get a penny. Dr. Wallis concluded his speech by giving instances of greed .and want- of motal principle, such as the members of the House of Representatives voting themselves increased salaries, apparently oblivious of the fact that if they didn't no one else could, and concluded a not very fair speech by saying it was an unprincipled thing to break pledges and promises. Which nobody can deny.