THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1902.

Evening Post, Volume LXIV, Issue 117, 13 November 1902, Page 4

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1902.

THE PREMIER'S PLAINTS. Time was when the Premier, conscious of a great majority ol dumb votes behind him, was ever leady on the smallest provocation to show fight. Now, with a general election pending and ominous mutterings of discontent in the political atmosphere, he plaintively assumes the role of injuied virtue, and essays to preach to the valiants iv the fray the advantages of charity and goodwill toward each other, and toward himself particularly. Such v. as. ilie note of his speech to the people of Port Chalmers on Tuesday evening, where the electors being likely to return an Opposition candidate, the Premier thought it necessary to personally appeal to the faithful. He appealed and complained. In his absence he had bee.i misrepresented. It had been said that he was responsible

aT - tll6 de!ay in the malter of tho South African contract, whereas his last act before he left the country was to impose substantial guarantees upon Mr. Sleigh, which he must forfeit if he failed in his undertaking. Well, we know that he aid fail, and we do not know that the penally (£3000) was enforced. Will the liemier say if this sum has been recovered, and wherefore if it be nob so? lhen, as to the refused tender of the union Company, we are told that the class of boats they offered were unsuitable, being merely cargo sliips, but as we have asked before, what was the necessity of stipulating for passenger accommodation, when quicker and better transit can be obtained via Australia? Again, j? mier now says the Union Company did n O t .n-ant the contract, which, it true, i s a cur i ous reflection upon the busip-ess methods of the management of thp.o enterprising corporation. But whatever the cause, Mr. Seddon did not explain away the fact that by muddlement, mismanagement, or design, the South African service was postponed for the best part of a year, and by thafc most reprehensible delay our competitors for the trade were enabled to obtain an advantage that should have been ours. Another plaint of the Premier's was thafc he was assailed over the £3000 passage money for the Coronation ContinB t n \- bufc he mie> omitted to mention who ms first assailants were. They were a strong body of his own party in Parliament, who sought audience of the Act-ing-Premier to ascertain the purpose to which the money was to be applied, their idea, being that the Premier had drawn it for his own expenditure, and so far as this' journal was concerned it simply printed the facts as they transpired, and was the first paper to publish the Act-ing-Premier's vindication of the transaction. Next, the Premier complained that tne Public Revenues Acb had been misrepresented and misunderstood, and with characteristic magnanimity cast the onus of section 3 of that scandalous measure upon the Law Officers of the Crown. In our issue of yesterday, we dealt somewhat fully with this measure, quoting in support the remarkable denunciation of its arbitrary and dangerous powers of tho member for Avon, than whom there has not been a more constant and consistent supporter of the present Government during the whole period of its existence. The Premier was a more imposing figure afc the last general election, when, certain of his backing, he was ready to give battle to all comers. In his present role of injured innocence, he is entertaining if not convincing, because behind in all are the shadows of the recent denial of the- Papawai speech and the repudiation of the Purse.