LYTTELTON TIMES VERSUSVALPy.

Press, Volume XVIII, Issue 2492, 26 April 1871, Page 3

LYTTELTON TIMES VERSUSVALPy.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir, —I have no doubt Mr Valpy can afford to pass over the first portion of the editorial tirade in the Lyttelton Times of Saturday last against himself, and forgive them the use of such violent language, a.s I simply look upon it as their charming method of letting off their surplus steam. I proceed, however, to take notice of tbat portion of this really most admirable article, where they say—" Some time ago an article appeared in this journal deprecating a proposal of the Government to build a jetty in Lyttelton by day labor instead of by contract. A few days afterwards a letter signed '•• Colouus " appeared in the Press attacking our proposal to invite tenders for the wharf in question." The information here afforded by the Times relative to the subject under discussion is very meagre, aud they immediately commence their old, old practice of personal abuse. But will you allow mc to discuss dispassionately the actual merits of the case in point—viz., the building of the Lyttelton jetty by day labor rather than by contract. The Lyttelton Times objected to this wharf being built, under the pretext that it had not been tendered for in the usual way ; while " Colouus," in endeavoring to prove that tendering for works in the Lyttelton harbour had not been productive of bcueficial results, tried to show that it was particularly unwise to invite tenders again in the present instance, while it was at least doubtful whether there was a sufficient number of competitors that were thorough masters of this description of work. And these opinions are simply formed from past experience, which proves plainly that the Lyttelton harbour works tbat have already been tendered for have by no means turned out perfectly satisfactory. Perhaps it would be unwise to attribute these failures to any jiarticular class of men, but the fact remains that there was some mismanagement somewhere. Aud the reason why " Colonus" recommended the plan of carrying out these works by day labor was because in nearly every instance, unless I am much mistaken, the Government of the day bad to take the works into their own hands and finish them by day labor, or what was tantamount to day labor ; a course only possible under such circumstances at a great expense, waste of time, and inconvenience to the public. I would therefore ask the Lyttelton Times, instead of ignoring the question at issue, and diverging from the given point at something like a right angle, for the sake of giving personal abuse and trying to injure another man in his pursuit of a living, to prove that the grounds of this argiimeut are unfounded. But the course the Lyttelton Times pursues is notorious, namely, tbat in each case when their arguments will not hold water they shower on their opponents a series of personal attacks. If the opponent happens to be a contractor, the Lyttelton Times will insinuate in the most gentlemanly manner possible that his contracts with the Government are jobs ; if a schoolmaster, they speak in still more gentlemanly terms of " ushers," and draw facetious allusions to his apparel—to his hair, his eyes, and his forehead ; and to the boarding-school miss, &c, See If aG overnment clerk, they charitably use the department to which he belongs as a tool by wliich to bring him into disgrace—the end, of course, absolving the means. I now appeal to the public of Canterbury, and ask them if the letter commenting upon the Lyttelton Harbor Works can, by the wildest stretch of imagination, be construed into anything like an undue interference with politics ? Surely the Lyttelton Times would not interfere with the liberty of tbe subject, because that subject happens to be a Government clerk ? Yet they state openly that he had no business to write to a newspaper, and lead mc to infer that he has no right even to attend political debating societies, or in fact any public meeting where politics are discussed. But, sir. tbe moment that such a miserable law as this obtained in Canterbury, I believe every man in the service would immediately forward his resignation, at least such as possess minds capable of thinking for themselves, and who consider their labor worth their hire. Nevertheless, I admit that there is a clear line to be drawn with regard to the conduct of Government officials, and there are grounds on which our Superintendents ought to interfere. For instance, at the time of political elections, the duty of the Superintendent of the day is unquestionably to issue instructions that the heads of departments shall in no way control the political opinions of their subordinates, nor dictate to them the Hue of policy that they themselves advocate. The Lyttelton Times refers to the American system, but where that system is so corrupt is that tbe heads of departments compel their officials to take an active part, and to act and vote in support of the Government. Will the Lyttelton Times dare to say that our Superintendents or their Executives have ever dictated to their officials as to bow they should vote ? Or that Mr Marshman, or Mr Davie, or Mr Thornton, or the heads of any departments, have used their influence in "the slightest degree over those beneath them as to their line of political conduct.' It would surely be as unfair to curb a Government servant in this respect a.s it would a servant under any other employers. As a general rule, the editor of a British newspaper would never dream of gagging any portion of the community, and of prohibiting them from expressing their free opinions on the public questions of the day. The Lyttelton Times, however, I deeply regret to say, to the discredit of the Province of Canterbury, stands out in bold relief as a most lamentable exception. Yours, fee, AN Outsider.