THE Evening Star. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1869.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1984, 14 September 1869, Page 2

THE Evening Star. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1869.

We yesterday published a letter from Mr Farnie, a member of the Town Council of Port Chalmers, respecting the water supply of that important township, in which he very kindly explains the proceedings that led to the rejection of the offer made, and the reasons that induced him to vote against it. He also administers a little castigation to the Evening Star for not being acquainted with the facts of the case. As according to his own statement, the /acts are pretty much as they were stated by us, we feel very comfortable on that score, and still more so, that the leader in the Star has been the means of making public the sort of argument that satisfies the consciences of Town Councillors in postponing much wanted improvements. That stalking-horse “the poor man” is paraded, it appears, in Port Chalmers as well as elsewhere. For a long time the “ poor men”—in reality some of the richest men in Dunedin—stood in the way of improving some of the footpaths, the objection, being interpreted, meaning they were unwilling to put their hands in their pockets to improve their own properties. In Port Chalmers we are treated with another version of the poor man’s interests, and all who are entitled to appropriate to themselves that endearing epithet must be devoutly thankful to the Town Council for their kindly guardianship. We are not prepared at any time to expect that Corporations will be able to give the clearest reasons for what they do, and therefore think it possible that occasionally they may arrive at conclusions by other processes than those of induction or deduction. In this idea we are confirmed by Mr Farnie’s letter. He tells us he has investigated the matter, and although in a short letter of course the process involved in a long investigation cannot be unfolded, he still offers a few arguments for public guidance. Perhaps the value of them may be best tested by putting them in a clearer form than he has stated them. In the late Council, we are told, three members were favorable to the scheme proposed. He feared these three members would succeed in obtaining its adoption, and that “ the Council -would run too “ hurriedly into the proposed scheme, “ without due consideration.” He therefore moved its being remitted to a committee for examination and report. That committee never reported. Now notwithstanding Mr Faunie’s position as Town Councillor, we fail to see that the conclusion he draws from this, is at all a necessary one. He assumes that because the report was never brought up during the sitting of the former Council, the measure was anything but favorably entertained. We really see no connection between the pi'emises and the conclusion. It seems to us quite within the bounds of possibility that the committee might even have reported against it, and yet that the plan might have been a very desirable one. Then follow two or three other reasons equally logical. “The “ poor man is paying more for coals “ delivered than what they can be sup- “ plied for in Dunedin.” Such an argument carries its own refutation with it. Mr Farnie puts before us a comparison of the cost of two necessaries, water and fuel ; and if his reasoning were put into logical form, it would present a very curious appearance. We hold that a prime necessity of life, for health, cleanliness, and morality, is a full supply of water. Mr Farnie does not even assume that the supply is full. He does not deny that on many occasions water has to be obtained at great expense from a distance, but when it is urged that this, one of the greatest blessings, should be supplied abundantly and cheaply, he replies by laying down the proposition, because a “ poor man” cannot have cheap coals he shall not hive cheap water. Cannot he see that the very cause that makes coals dear, indifferent roads, operates quite as powerfully to enhance the cost of water 1 Wc apprehend from the statement of the limits indicated in Mr Farnie’s letter to which the water supply was to be confined, “ George street and the “ shipping,” that no general rate would have been levied, but that holders of property who could have been benefited by the supply and the shipping would alone have had to pay for it. The Corporation, therefore, in their kind consideration for the poor man, might have stipulated for the erection of stand pipes at certain convenient spots at which water could have been supplied at a low fixed price, so that the benefit might have been diffused as widely as possible. In conclusion, we would remark that being outside observers, not mixed up with party prejudices, feelings or interests, that which appears so plain and self-evident to us, may not be so to thfl people of the Port. Our informa-

tion may be limited; the offer may have been one-sided; but, so far as the explanations offered by Air Farnie are concerned, they do not seem to present sufficient reasons for its rejection. To postpone obtaining one immense benefit because you have not others in possession, is not the course usually adopted by business-men. Perhaps none who acted on such a principle would have the term “ sensible ” arrogated by Mr Farnik to the Council for rejecting the scheme, accorded to them by the world. The “ borrowing ” for water works differs from borrowing for the construction of roads in one material point; the revenue derivable from water works is direct and permanent, while that from roads is indirect, and the outlay constant. Water works would tend materially to develope the industry of the Port by encouragement of shipping, and by facilitating the working of machinery, as well as contributing tQ the personal comfort of the inhabitants. We do not think, therefore, that they would have been prevented roadmaking, but rather that they would have helped it; and we cannot see, unless better reasons can be supplied than those given, that a case has been made out against the scheme.

Mining. —A claim on the Tuapelca ('reck, near the Mouth, recently yielded three men five pounds of g Id for three weeks’ work. Were there a plentifu supply of water brought to bear on all the spurs between Mr Kitzgerald’s and the Mouth, this case would not be the only instance of large returns for mining in that district.— Tuapeka Times. Fatal Accident. —On Tuesday last a little boy, aged about two years, son of Mr Craig, Boundary Creek was play mg about, when his mother suddenly missed him, and making search found the little fellow floating face downwards in the creek. He had evidently fallen into the water from the steep b.mk. Every effort was used to restore animation, but without avail. — Onmaru Times. Princess Theatre. —“ Rob Roy ” was presented last evening to the most brilliant of the many brilliant houses we have seen since Mr Talbot came amongst us. He is unquestionably a great artist. His genius embraces a wide range in dramatic art, and his finished dedications indicate the power and feeling of a master mind. He blends light and shade with admirable precision, and all his characters stand out, as it were, from the canvas, perfect in form., faultless in ’ color, and always expressive of an intended end and object. All he touches bears evidence of high artistic skill; and he is always effective because he is always true to nature. We have now seen Mr Talbot in a variety of characters, and there is no one in the delineation of which he has not a|ipeared conspicuously happy. It is therefore natural that the Princess’s should be crowded from nighi; to night during Mr Talbot’s stay amongst us—because it must necessarily but rarely happen that the opportunity is afforded of witnessing the achievements of an artist so thoroughly accompli-lied. And yet ‘‘Hob Roy ” must be pronounced only a qualified success. Mr Talbot admirably depicted the lights and shadows which form the character of the great outlaw—of the man who fierce and unbending by circumstances, possessed withal a woman’s heart of exquisite tenderness—but there was still some important want apparent to render the whole piece complete and effective. The fact is, the other parts, or most of them, were spoken in a hybrid language which burlesqued rather than imitated the Scotch, and which, though it might amuse, could hardly sati-fy an essentially Scotch audience. We do not point to this little defect in any unkind spirit, because we are fully aware of the difficulty, in the case of persons other than Scotchmen, assuming the Highland brogue at a moment’s notice ; but we believe that this iu a great measure explains why the piece was not received with more marked manifestations of applause. Miss Gassy Mai thews personated the character of Helen M ‘Greg, r in a strikingly effective manner. The lire and energy of a Talbot appeared to have been communicated to this young la ly, wh < certainly infused more force and feeling i to her part than is common to her. She was deservedly applauded. The Misses Forde and iSye. though anti-Scotch iu tune, manner, and feeling, were enabled to appear,to considerable advantage in some Scottish sou. s, which were rendered in their usually bewitching manner, and elicited some genuine bursts of applause. In ttie farce of “ Gool as a Cucumber,” which followed, Mr Bartlett succeeded in keeping the house in a constant r ar by his inimitable rendering of the part of the cool and impudent Mumper. This evening “ Rob Roy” will be repeated.