THE Grey River Argus. SATURDAY, MARCH 2, 1867.

Grey River Argus, Volume III, Issue 177, 2 March 1867, Page 2

THE Grey River Argus. SATURDAY, MARCH 2, 1867.

Perhaps some of our readers riiaiy have visited or resided in. some obscure country village in England ; aud they nviy remember with what respect the villagers treated the nian .who could boast of having once been to London. They may remember-, also wifch what deference his opinions were received, and how lie was a )knowledged as the Sir Oracle before whom no dog would be allowed to bark. The member for Grey mouth is in many respects "the man who has been to London/ He has been to Christchurch; has sat in the gilded . halls of the Provincial , Legislature, and has returned . with, amongst Qther things, an immense idea of his own capacity, aud, as he would have- people believp., a coinplcte arid accurate acquaintance with all public questions. It is no wonder that under such circumstances Mr Whall's dicta are accepted by sonic. with as. great credence, and inspect as the utterances of the Delphic oracle.. .If a question arises as to»a*hat the Provincial Council. has done or not done, who no able to state t!ie facts as "the man who is one of that body 1 If his constituents, iii their ignorance of their true interests, choose to ask for certain things, id it not quite propei'that their representative should decide whether they were right in #oiugso or not '] Of course. People who are .busily engaged in the stern realities of every-day life, are manifestly unfitted to express any opinion on; anything beyond the concei'ns of their shops ; or warehouses. What do they know, about matters affecting the general well-being of the community ] Of con rse nothing at all, and of coul-se it is quite proper for their representative to oppose that .which the inferior instincts of his constituents imagined to be to their advantage. But even children like^to know why and wherefore their requests are set aside, aud the people of Grej'mouth may be excused in the desire they feel that Mr Whall should f atisfy the'Jitfcle intelli- ;- gence they* jOisess regarding ;;h:-|s reasons for opposing a municipality. He has ; already so after a -.fashion, but he has, so far, failed to" prove 1 by dispassionate argument that his reasons were based on justifiable grounds. He has simply made assertions—assertions Which/ it is 'true, are accepted Ayith great reverence by. his inmicdiate followed ■ ; ; But assertions are not ■ : facts, and. .,-, nothing is more cei-t-ain than that Mr Whall's assertions -are quite contrary ; t6 facts; ; -We are^not now going to- deal with the gratuitous, ' iunworthy, and, false ,])CvsqnaX. allusions of which Mi*r "VVhaU been guilty. We h»vc simply to refer to •tlie-stJitc-.meutsibe/h^-ipublicly-lnade.'witliregaytV * to' an ixnixiirtont '-.public question— -the question of a municipality^ Hitherto, let it be borne in mind, Mr Whall has

failed to prove his wpyds by any evv deiice but his' own; 'what that evidence is worth we shall be able to show. To begin with, Mr Whall,. at the public meeting held . a week or two ago, explained his reasons for opposiug a municipality, and for not taking any steps in that direction iv the Provincial Oouuoil. So far so good; Mr Whall •had a perfect right to exercise his discretion in the matter. But his explanation cleai'ly indicated his knowledge that a municipality had been mooted, and that his constituents had expressed an opinion in favor of one, If not, why the defence? The other night, Mr Whall defended himself from the charge of inconsistency by stating that no request had beeu made to him to obtain a municipality for Greymouth. Now, we would ask., "what is the difference between a knowledge of the wish of his constituents, and the same wish officially brought under his notice 1 What is expected of a public representative but an intimate acquaintance with the desires of tlipso whom he " represents 1 " Is it necessary .that : on every subject affecting the well-being of a constituency, the representative should be specially asked to do this or not do that 1 ? Surely not. Mr Whall was very well aware of the existence of the memorial in favor of a municipality, and that knowledge ought to have beeu sufficient to show him that it was hia duty to second it,. -by -hiis.- influence in the Legislature. He did not do so, and it he/ thought himself justified by his convictions in not doing so, well and good. But. he should have been content to rely on his own superior judgment, and not now -take .refuge wilder the plea that no request was made to him on the subject. . -Again, Mr Whall has repeatedly asserted his conviction that no grants need be expected from the Provincial Council for municipal purposes ; and he has endeavored to substantiate that opinion by quoting as facts wlia*", in reality, are no facts at all. He has said that no gvfints have been made to municipalities by the Provincial Council, except in one case— that of Christchurch, the Municipal Council of which received a grant of public money, as compensation for: the sale. by the Government of a portion <5f thetown lands!. Now, although Mr Whall " has been to London," we are in a ])osition to deny the accuracy of his statement. We have the printed documents of the Council before us, and we find on reference to them that for several successive sessions sums of money— aiid large sums of money, too— have been voted by the Coiiticil to the municipalities af Lyttel•ton, Christ;.church, aud Kaiappi ; aruLon turning to the finance accounts, we find that these votes have been wholly or mainly expended. Now either the printed documents of the Provincial Council are grossly incorrect, or -'Mr Whall has betniyed a gi'eab amount of ignorance on a subject with which he professes to be perfectly acquainted. Mr Whall may possbly 'deny-the"''ac-curacy of what we state ; but we are ])repared when the proper time comes to publish the focts as they are to bo. found recoftlediu tlie dfficiardpeuments. If Mi-'Whair'au'd those of hU wa.3 r 'of thinking have any real arguments to support,, their ' opposition to a ; municipality, let them accept the challongo which appears iiranother column. We are quite open to conviction ; but ;we must have very niuch stronger aud more conclusive arguments than have yet ; bee.n adduced to induce us to change oiir opinion.