THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1889.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 9463, 6 September 1889, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1889.

The discussion in tho House last night on tho announcement of Mr. Hislop's resignation is a fitting termination in "the meantime to an affair which has been marked from the beginning by a singular display of folly on the part of Ministers. Mr. Hislop has resigned his place in the Ministry, and also his seat in the House. The Premier states emphatically that lie has not done so because of tho report censuring him which lias been agreed to by the Legislative Council. Then why did he not do before what he has done now ? Tho correspondence has been in print on the table of the House for weeks, and so has the report of the Public Petitions Committee on the petition of Christie finding that in sentencing him to imprisonment for fraud Judge Ward acted quite properly. The Premier stated last night that Mr. Hislop had, "as a matter of honour," felt it necessary to act as he did, and that he had resigned "with a view to putting himself right before the country." The only way in which Mr. Hislop's honour is reflected upon is in the evidence before the Council's committee, where the evidence of the Clerk of the Court at Oamaru is directly at variance with the version of Mr. llislop. The Clerk of the Court is not a party to the case, and he has every claim to be considered the witness of truth. His bias, if he has any, would, we should think, be in the direction of siding with the Minister of Justice, who has greater power over his career than any other person. His statement was, that when Mr. Hislop said that he would get into trouble by obeying the orders of Judge Ward, he replied, "I can hardly get into trouble by obeying my superior oflicer ;' ! and Mr. Hislop then said, " Oh, but there is some one here above your superior officer," meaning himself, Mr. Hislop, who was concerned in the case, but happened also to be Minister of Justice. As counsel in the case, he might be right in speaking to the clerk of the Court about the warrant, but surely he had no right whatever, as a Minister, to go about Oamaru making inquiries of the Clerk of the Court what was to be done in particular cases. He had no right as a Minister to make a memorandum on any warrant which should be a direction to a Clerk of Court how he was to deal with it, and especially he ought to have avoided doing so when it was a case in which his firm was concerned. Just fancy Mr. Hislop, who is not Minister of Justice, happening to be in Auckland, and giving instructions to Mr. Stoney about how he was to deal with a warrant as to which he had received instructions from Dr. Giles !

We believe the evidence of the Clerk of Court. But we do not think that Mr. Hislop, in his statement, deliberately uttered an untruth. And we fail to see how, if Mr. Hislop's honour is affected, it can be vindicated by his resignation. We are quite sure that people will rather take the double resignation as admitting that the statements made on the opposite side are true. How is he to "put himself right before the country V Going through an election again will not do it. If lie is elected again that will only show that the people of Oamaru are grateful to him for the little job he attempted to do for their harbour with the trust funds. Sir Harry quite glows with enthusiasm about it, and says that " the House would feel proud that one of its members showed so high a sense of honour as to take the most extreme steps possible immediately censure was passed upon him" We decline to be proud of Mr. Hislop at the bidding of his fellow culprit, the Premier. In fact, we are rather ashamed of them both. But then the Premier says emphatically that Mr. Hislop has not resigned because of the censure passed in " another place." What are we to think ? If the Premier and Mr. Hislop think that the matter was not fully and fairly gon-e into, and that Mr. Hislop must" put himself right before the'country" by some irrelevant process, why did they resist to the death the proposal for a committee of the House of Representatives? Of that committee Sir Harry would himself have been a member, and could have seen justice done. But, then, whatever may be proved respecting the evidence given before the committee of the Council, nothing can explain away the monstrous letters written by Mr. Hislop aud Mr. Fergus. They remain, and as to their terms there can be no possible doubt. Mr. Hislop's first letter was so inconsiderate, so foolish, so entirely wrong, that no one reading it could think that there was anything improbable about the evidence of the Clerk of the Court, which has so completely upset Mr. Hislop, and touched his sense of honour. The Premier and Sir George Grey bring into the discussion the question of whether Judge Ward should have adjudicated on the case, seeing that the party prosecuting Christie had an amply-secured mortgage over property owned by him. But if it were necessary that the Government should take that matter up, it should have been done in quite another way than pursued by Mr. Hislop, who mixed it up with a cross-examination on the law points of the case, as to which a summons had been issued from Mr. Hislop's office, which Judge _ Ward might have had to answer in the Supremo Court. Mr. Hislop cannot possibly "rehabilitate" himself, and his colleagues need rehabilitation just about as much as he does. The best plan for them all is frankly to confess that they have been wrong and foolish, and to say nothing more about the matter. The sooner it is forgotten the better,

tions. Considerable sums have been sent from Australia, and subscriptions are being got together in New Zealand for the purpose of being cabled home to the organisation established by the dock labourers. In so great a matter, in a matter affecting such a large number of men, with all those who are depending upon them, there are very many here who would gladly make a considerable sacrifice if they were satisfied that it is right or judicious to do so. On these points we regret that we cannot give a very decided opinion. There are many aspects of a strike. A strike should be a last resort, after all other means are exhausted. If in any calling there is a superabundance of labour, the best plan is for some of those engaged in it to go into other work, and yet we are told that the crush of men at the London docks, and at other unskilled occupations in the great city, is caused by the influx from the country: districts where work is steady, if not highly paid. Then, if it be true, as we are informed, that every morning the dock gates are surrounded by crowds of men all eager to be taken on, that not one-half are engaged, and the rest are sent empty away, a strike for a higher wage will have very little effect. For such a state of things a strike is not the proper remedy. If an increase of wages is granted, more men will crowd the dock gates, and the average wage earned will not be more than it is at present. There are a large number of persons who will aid and sympathise with any strike. For them a strike is a contest between labour and capital, and in such a case they assume that labour must be right and capital must be wrong. From the statement made in the cable despatches as to the parties at home who are aiding the strikers, it would seem that they are having support from quarters winch usually look with rather a cold eye on any movement among the working classes, and to some extent that must weigh with us. But from the facts stated, we have no certain guidance. The dock labourers are paid at present 4s 2d a day, or 25s a week. That is certainly not a bad wage for the rudest kind of unskilled labour, providing a man had anything like constant employment, and, so far as we can see, a strike is no remedy for the intermittent nature of the work. The demand is made for (id a day of ten hours, and 8d for extra time. In yesterday's cablegrams it was stated that at Liverpool the men demanded an increase up to 6s per day, which surely we must consider is a high rate of wages, seeing that in Auckland at the present time some tradesmen cannot get more than 5s a 1 day. It is stated, also, that plenty of labour could be procured, but for the picket of 4000 men who guard the dock gates. So that it would appear that a large number of men are willing to work at the wages refused by the strikers, but are prevented by force. Are these men not more needing our aid 1 Much has been said of the miserable condition of the labourers at the East End of London, and the natural impulse is to sympathise with them and to aid them in any struggle which may appear to have a tendency to better their condition. We feel that more light and information are required as to the position of these men. We shall be glad to publish any information from persons in Auckland who may, from personal knowledge, be able to speak of the position of affairs at the London docks, and who may thus guide their fellowcitizens in the right direction of their sympathies and support.