Evening Post. THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1898. A MONUMENT TO SEDDONISM.

Evening Post, Volume LV, Issue 87, 14 April 1898, Page 4

Evening Post. THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1898. A MONUMENT TO SEDDONISM.

The lesson of the recent by-election has, in one respect at least, not been lost upon the Premier. His speech at the Parliamentary Buildings yesterday afternoon was for him a model of brevily and relevancy. The gathering was a small one, and Mr. Seddon had for once sufficient tact to avoid wearying it with a turgid flood of unnecessary talk. His humble henchman, toe Minister for Public Works, "tried his best to feed his leader's love of adulation, but the empty praises fell rather flatly upon unsympathetic ears. The impression left, or intended to be left, by Mr. Hall-Jones's effort was that the Premier— not the Parliament nor even the Ministry — the Premier alone, out of a consuming passion for the preservation of the valuable books and records in the Parliamentary Library, had, after long struggling, at last succeeded in arranging for a safe and suitable building. Were such an idea any approximation to the truth, the Premier's long delay would be a marvellous illustration of the ability with which he can cover up and restrain his desires. Mr. Hall-Jones's clumsy method of playing up to the great man would hardly be worth notice were it not that the sorry little comedy is one of those signs which show the abject dependence of the present Government upon the wishes of one man. It is quite time that such false ideas of 1 representative government were done away with, and that the people were taught to rely for the progress of the country not so much upon this or that political " boss," as upon the representatives of the people assembled in the national Council. A painful example of his deliberate and wilful disregard of the constitutional duties of a responsible Minister was given by the Premier in the course of his speech. He positively gloried in the fact that the Government had pledged the counti'y to the expenditure of several thousand • pounds beyond the sum grauted by "Parliament last session for the erection of a Library. " Money was no object," he glibly declared ; " there was sufficient in the Treasury, and it could not be spent on a better object than the one now in hand." Was money no object when the" housing of our helpless lunatics was in question ? Is the Premier or the Parliament of the colony to be the judge whether the money to be lavished on the Library could be better spent or not ? By what right, we would ask, even supposing the object to be in every sense desirable* does the Treasurer of the eoloivy presume to appropriate, or virtually appropriate, public moneys on his own authority, and irrespective of the sanction of Parliament ? If the Librarj r were an isolated instauce of such unconstitutional violence the matter would be less serious, but unfortunately we.have drifted and drifted under the reckless guidance of the present Premier until our old constitutional moorings are left far behind. We are constantly having such acts of Ministerial lawlessness brought under our notice, and nothing — not even the experience of last session — seems forcible enough to teach Mr. Seddon that the colony expects him, as First Minister of the Crown, to be the first supporter of the Constitution he has sworn to uphold. In the present case the arbitrary action of the Government is made even more reprehensible by the fact that it was totally unnecessary. The Chairman of the Library Committee stated last session that the architect, after due calculation, had estimated that the Library as projected would not cost more than £7000 to erect and complete. Even then there was some question as to whether the proposed front was not too ornate and costly. The Government does

not seem to have asked for alternative plans from other architects, and if more than £40,000 is to be expended on a highlydecoraled Gothic huilding in the face of a vote for £7000, and the knowledge Ihat a plain but serviceable Library could be erected for the smaller amount, we sincerely hope that Parliament will insist next session upon Ministers giving a full and detailed account of their stewardship iv the matter. Mr. Seddon professed himself anxious to take the public into his confidence, but the confidence he gives gratuitously is generally less reliable and less serviceable to the country than that which he keeps back until it is extracted from him by main force. Both the Premier and the Minister for Public Works gave what they evidently intended to pass as an emphatic denial of the truth of various criticisms made upon the bungling methods in which some of the work has been executed. As a matter of fact, the Ministerial denials were explicit only so far as the girders were concerned, and the Government organ iv this city has admitted that an error such as we had heard rumours of actually did occur with regard to the pillars. Taking the work as a whole, the Government is not to be congratulated upon the methods it has pursued, aud there will be absolute need of the most searching examination into the matter when Parliament reassembles. It will be necessary to enquire whether more than one architect was invited to tender plans, and if not, why not ? "What were the grounds of urgency which compelled the Government to pledge public funds before consulting Parliament? Why was it necessary to have a highly ornate building, when a simpler one could have been erected for the sum granted by Parliament ? Many other such questions will naturally suggest themselves, and since the Government has exceeded its authority, it should be made to answer them before receiving anything in the nature of an indemnity. Parliament has been too ready in the past to register Seddonian edicts, but we hope a better spirit will prevail for the future. There is much reason to suppose that when the story comes to be told it will be a sorry one of mismanagement and extravagance.