SNAPSHOTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIII, Issue 10651, 11 May 1895, Page 6

SNAPSHOTS.

i Ono must go to ancient history—say to ,tha narrative of Hainan, and Mordeoai, or the more venerable one of Joseph and his 'brethren—to find a parallel to the com'pleta triumph of tho Colonial Treasurer over his onemiea and detractors. With iwhat measureless slanders was not Mr 'Ward’s departure for England preceded and accompanied! He was a brigand—itho -worst of a very had lot of brigands, : too— making a descent upon unsuspecting ■British capitalists, with the intention of robbing or’fleecing them—not even for the good of Now' Zealand, but for his _ own personal advantage. Opposition “ specials and editors for ones forsook prophecy, and fcotook themselves to etraigbt-out lyino l . And they showed a capacity in that* direction which was nearly equal to •that diaolayad by the sailors at Eanshtah a boarding-honae, as described by Eudyaid iKipling: ■ And there were men o' all the ports, And regally they spat pud smoked. And foarsomely they lied. They lied about tho purple sea, They lied about the earth beneath, . They lied abou b the heavens o’er-head. But • thais mendacity, in all its height, depth, length and breadth, has come to nought. Tho “ brigand ” has been warmly received and feasted; helms achieved a igreat success in a financial operation on behalf of tho colony; his lady has been presented ab Court, and he himself—a Tory “ special” says so, at least—ia likely to ha also presented to Ida sovereign, and to “rise Sir Joseph Ward.” # # ■ This latest Conservative prophecy, I may say, reads like one that may come true. I hope, however, that I am not actuated by more party spirit when I express a fervent hope that it may be no imoro reliable than other predictions from the same quarter. I would not stand batwaon Mr Ward and the enjoyment of an “honour,” if he so esteems it, nor would I minimise the value to the colony of tae combliment that would be conveyed by the decoration of its Treasurer; but my objection has a more practical basis. Has not everyone observed _ that the knighting of a colonial politician is tha death blow to his future career? Look around tho whole oE tho colonies and see how few have survived tho wither* ing effects of tho Eoytil accolade. Knighthood and colonial polities do agree, that is very plain. Survey tha hosts ot politicians who, soon after being knighted, have either retired into private life or been relegated to the shades of Opposition. Amono - survivors it is only necessary to mention Vogel, Stout, Partes, Dibbs and Patterson. Henc® my dread that, should Mr Ward receive the compliment of knighthood, tho disruption of tha Cabinet and a lot of other evil consequences will follow. If it isn’t party feeling, is it superstition that is at the root of my aversion, to tha decoration of Liberal politicians ? Mo. I think there are solid reasons for it, though those I have stated may not satisfy my readers. * * *

: That ignorance ia the devil I have no manner of doubt; but it is sometimes amusing, which the traditional father of lies never is. , A Conservative editor in a southern town has just given an. example of this sort of ignorance,' which is almost as good as any that could be picked from school examination papers. Discoursing on the adulteration of butter, ho indignantly asks: “Why does not Mr Beeves, in his capacity of Minister of Agriculture, devote some time to sampling export butter ? ” That is an unanswerable conundrum, if you like. I should : probably bo accused of disingenuous shuffling were I to suggest that one vary jgood reason ia that Mr Beeves is not Minister of Agriculture. H would be more to the point to urge that it is no part of any Minister’s duty to go round poking ids finger into all the pats of butter put up for export and then sucking the greasy digit. But when I coma to think of it, ■Mr M’Kenzie, who ia Minister of Agriculture, has the comfortable appearance of a man who has done a lot of that sort of thing, whereas Mr Beeves has, like ’Cassius, a lean and hungry look.” There may, after all, be soma worldly wisdom in hhe query. Why doesn’t Mr Beeves sample the exsort butter ?

■ The Tariff: Commission baa finished its “ gallivanting” about; thm country, and 'baa settled’down to the maid work of framing its report. I don’t envy the Com:miaaioneso’ position. They have got to reconcile the interests of the producer, the importer and the consumer, of the ■worker, the employer and tho Government ; tax-gatherer, and amidat all they have to arrange things so that neither federation with Australia nor trade with every quarter of tho globe will be in any .way hampered. If they are wise men they will turn their blind side to Eussia, China, Japan, and the rest of them, and keep a single eye on New Zealand’s interests. Distant fields are always green, but the Commissioners need not show themselves of the same colour when considering the development of ■prosperous industries. Sir Jamas Patterson gave vigorous expression to my idea the other day when addressing tbs Melbourne Chamber of Commerce. “What’s the uaa ■ of talking about encouraging trade with Canada and South Africa!” he exclaimed in the coarse of an earnest speech. “ Why, damn it, we haven’t gob across the Murray yef,” That vigorous “damn” has done liaora than anything else to arouse Australians to the absurdities of their border Customs duties, for I see that since it was uttered the large colonies are drawing together in a reciprocal spirit. So, if our Tariff Commissioners are tempted to fix up matters. so that wa may ba able to exchange oar products for Japanese fans, Chinese tea, or Enssian bears, let them remember that (as many blanky expletives here as tho reader likes), wa haven’t eot across tho Tasman Sea yet! * * * The great Chinese question in Christchurch has developed—or, should I say, degenerated ?—into a discussion of the religious and ethical aspects of the case. This is all owing to the fact that, while we are demanding the exclusion of Chinese sub]sots from New Zealand, wo are sending off a missionary to China. Such queer in-

consistency can only ho defended by assuming that we belong to a ** superior race" and have a right to do ss we like with the “ inferior ” races. A militant Christian, in the parson of Pastor Birch, has been splitting straws as to who,tohou.d bo our treatment of the despised Celastials. We ought, it seems, to walk in the street with them, even invito them to our afternoon teas, but we f should sternly refuse to marry our sisters or daughters to them. We should bo ready on occasion to uao our revolvers in defence of our own right to consort with Chinamen, but wo should at the same time use the eama revolvers in resistance of any inclination that our women folks might show to seek alliance with tha identical Celestials. That, os I understand it, is the beautifully logical position of the good pastor. He aaema to forgot that women are in revolt against tho domination of their male relatives, and that they have not that lino masculine sense of fitness which would enable them to “ draw the lino ” where ha does. Mr Birch being one of those who, in the language of Eudibms, Decide all controversy by Infallible artillery, is prepared to arguo that tha apostles would have drawn their revolvers, if they had had any, in defence of tho rights which he claims and definon. They struck Ananias and Sspphira dead, and they brought blindness on another person, he points out; and shall nob tho modern representatives of the apostles use the “natural means” at their command, to wit, the “infallible svrtillery” of revolvers? Perhaps tha benignant pastor is right. The apostles ware men very much like himself; but ho surely dobs not pretend to believe that their Master apof their bloody-miadednosa. Quite the reverse was the case, for He rebuked those who wished Him to invoke fire from heaven for the punishment of certain adversaries, and was ever proclaiming that the Christian ought not to fight with carnal weapons. According to the pastor, tha age of martyrdom io as dead as the age of miracles, for tha euffLciont reason that no missionary would place himself in danger of “ having hia face carved ” with a cannibal's sse. This io a libel on the modern missionary. And, in any case., what becomes of the argument drawn from apostolic example ? Were not they ready to be burned, dismembered, sawn asunder, or torn by wild horses for the truth’s sake? Are wo to copy the defects and ignore the outstanding virtues cf these great exemplars? ; Flaneur.