THE SEDDON TESTIMONIAL

Evening Star, Issue 11683, 15 February 1902, Page 6

THE SEDDON TESTIMONIAL

[Special to the Stab.]

WELLINGTON, February Ik

A public servant writes to the local press to say that “ a serious aspect arises when we consider the question of monetary donations to Ministers from Government officers. The whole system is an offence against public in orals. Is the Minister who has to grant increases of pay, or make reductions, even to discharges, to be propitiated by levies of portions of the pay or wages? Voluntary! pooh! We know what will happen to the roan who does not pay up. Unfortunately one Minister has already twice accepted gifts from the men in his departments, but it must cease. America in its worst corruption never allowed the public servants to openly pay tribute to their political bosses. Let private citizens pay what testimonial they choose, or that a share in Imperial contracts may suggest, but leave the subscription lists outside the Government Buildings.” The ‘Post’ is still in revolt against the Seddon presentation proposal. In last night’s issue it says;—“ It would seem that the movement has so little support from the general bemy of citizens. A cynical observer of the various currents, Political and other, that set towards the render would not have much difficulty in discovering why most of these picked citizens are to be found dans cette galore Apparently the reegnt appeal to Mr Seddon’s political opponents has not borne fruit, and it is open to question whether even loyal supporters of the Ministerialist policy are unanimously in favor of presenting to any party leader, however successful he may be, a dole of sovereigns. The promoters of the scheme try to make the bert of their co.se bv confounding two distinct things—'he hnrd-y of tlm colony to the Empire and p- xm-il devoid;>n to Mr Scd(lon, Timt Mr S;.\kiou—barring certain mi-Ukes of n.:;i:i:;rr aml an egotism that i* torn-: ime-s ridicu.c-js, sometimes even dauvroa: has played bis part well in ca;ryiug out thr loyal wishes of the people no one who believes, in the Imperial idea will deny. Had be not. been able to do this he would not now be in office. As an astute politician, peculiarly susceptible to the winds of popular sentiment. he has chosen to move m the direction pointed out by tho majority of the electors. Having been (bus guided to his course, he has pursued it with that energy which has mam tained him in power for several years. AH this we frankly place to his credit, and arc ready to admit that he has been instrumental in drawing closer the silken ties that bind us to the Mother Land ; but we do not think so poorly of his fellow-colonists as to believe that he is the sole cause or embodiment of New Zealand loyalty. Nor can we persuade ourselves that that loyalty would find fitting expression in a purse of sovereigns presented to a man who has been treated more generously by a trusting country, and has already gained mane than others from the colony’s devotion to the Empire, As far as collecting the money is concerned, there is little doubt that a considerable sum could be raised if the country were to be, as seems likely, canvassed in a businesslike way. The liquor trade, the defence and army contractors, and other recipients of (Ministerial favors could, if they have a keen sense of gratitude, easily be persuaded to provide a handsome amount. But unless the movement meets with the spontaneous approval of the people at large it cannot, strictly speaking, Ik- termed national, and in this city we observe no signs of popular enthusiasm. Wens it only proposed to give a banquet in Mr Seddon’s honor, or to present him with an address, there would not be the same reasons for opposition, or had he been leaving the colony for good—and his personal denial on that point must, as the Dunedin ‘ Star ’ says, be accepted as final—it would, as we remarked when the proposal wns first mooted, have been an entirely different matter. As it is, seeing that Mr Seddon proposes to return to the colony us its Premier, there would be a decided want of seemliness in his accepting a sum of money from private, persons, particularly if any of the contributor's had political or business relations with the Government of which he is the head. We cannot help feeling that any such movement would have been checked at the outset by Mr Sudden's predecessors in the Premiership, r.nd there is no reason to believe that they were better off in this world’s gear than he- is. They would not have thought it consis teut with the dignity of their office or their official freedom of action to receive a privately-subscribed present from their fel-low-colonists drain g their tenure of the Premiership. "