AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE. Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning. Saturday, November 19, 1887. THE BUBBLE BURST.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume I, Issue 69, 19 November 1887, Page 2

AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE. Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning.

Saturday, November 19, 1887. THE BUBBLE BURST.

Be just and fear not; Let all the ends thou aim’st at be thy country's, Thy God’s, and truth’s.

At a special meeting of the Harbour Board on Thursday last the charges made against Mr Beecheno were considered, and the petition setting forth the grounds for complaint, was dismissed, the petitioners being censured.

In the face of the fact that all those who had signed the petition, with the exception of two discharged workmen, had withdrawn their names, and taking into consideration the answers of the Mr Beecheno, overseer, Mr Thomson, engineer, and Mr McLoughlan, contractor, we can see no other course that could have been adopted by the Board. Having now heard both sides of the question it appears clear that the charges were formulated by two discharged workmen, who got a number of ratepayers to back up their action by attaching their signatures to a document setting out the allegations. Those allegations have been conclusively disproved.

The whole affair has been a fizzle and, in the absence of any proof, it is to be regretted that the charges were made. There appears not the slightest foundation for them, and the Board has very rightly decided against the complainants. There is one thing, however, that the Board should do at their next meeting, and that is, to prevent any more men from being employed outside the district. There are a number of good men here who are wanting work, and who, as ratepayers, should have the first chance given them. Hitherto a decided preference has been shown for outside labour.

In a previous article we commented on the alleged existence of the " truck ’< system, which, it is stated, is being carried on with the knowledge of those whose duty it is to prevent it. That statement is still being made, and from enquiries we have made, there appears to be some truth in it. We have nothing to do with who provided money for building a certain boarding-house, but what we have to do with is “ Whether men are taken on the work, and are given to understand, either impliedly or otherwise, that they must board at a certain boarding-house.” It will be difficult to get at the bottom of such a statement, but the Board should inquire into it,

VOGEL AND THE SPEAKER. "Jump on a man when he ! s down.” It is quite amusing to see how the Tories are trying to make capital out of Vogel’s indiscreet conduct in the House, and endeavoring to divert the effect of the veteran statesman's conduct into a profit to themselves. Of Vogel as a leader we have had quite enough, at any rate until we are compelled to fall back upon some one. But party lines should be dropped alto- 4 gether in deciding this matter. A question was asked by an individual concerning an individual, and if the latter’s reference to the matter was not in accordance with the rules of the House, then his conduct should be judged accordingly. There is no doubt Sir Julius Vogel acted in a way that deserved severe censure, and such conduct from one so experienced in public life is all the more to be reprehended. But when the circumstances are considered, what is there to justify the howl that has been raised by many mock-modest politicians ? As one of our ministers said the other day, let them first look to their own characters before they too freely criticise the actions of others, It must be a terrible thing to be situated as Sir Julius Vogel is, a helpless cripple for the remainder of his days, and it can easily be imagined how irritating the question was to him. He is, as all mortals would be, keenly sensitive of his infirmities, and it is only natural that he should resent the manner in which the question was put. Many men would be inclined to say much stronger things with less reason for it. There is no use attempting to justify the subsequent conduct of Sir Julius Vogel—he should not have entered into such a squabble, and had he looked upon the matter with silent contempt he would have come out of it with much more credit to himself. But the Speaker was in a measure to blame for his arbitrary ruling in the first instance. As to the point involved in Mr Thompson’s question, the information might have been very easily obtained without such a course being resorted to. Though Sir Julius Vogel has been made the scapegoat in this case, it will be well for reflecting people to consider whether there is not a great deal of truth in some of the statements made, though they may not be parliamentary. It is no secret that many of those men sent to represent their constituents in the House do not by their conduct do credit to those who have sent them there. No doubt it is not pleasant to some to have reference made to these little matters, but in his wrath Sir Julius may have done a service of no little value. If his outspoken words help to purge the House of certain things that are not to the taste of those who have regard for its moral tone, then a great point will be gained through the rashness of an individual. It is the truth that cuts.