Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 772, 17 December 1886, Page 23

An instructive commentary on the “ unemployed ” agitation is furnished by a Christchurch telegram published in another column. The Christchurch “ unemployed,” who are receiving charitable relief in the shape of Government employment, determined to take a holiday, which these poor, penniless, oppressed -creatures celebrated with a picnic and general jollification. But when pay-day came they were scandalised and outraged to find that it was not contemplated to pay them -relief wages for the day they had spent in amusement and jolification. They protested loudly against this cruel treatment, and actually persuaded a weak Mayor to plead their cause with Sir Julius "Vogel. Characteristically enough, Sir Julius conceded even this preposterous demand, and so these professedly “ unemployed ” persons, who are being paid by public charity, will receive full wages for absenting themselves from their work and indulging in amusement. They are lucky to be able to afford this sort of thing instead of waiting for holidays. Civil servants, and bankers, and clerks, and 'merchants, and tradesmen, and shopmen, .and others who are genuine workers, cannot indulge in these relaxations excepting on recognised holidays. How happy is the lot of the New Zealand unemployed who are supported by a benevolent country ! Surely this last little incident will expose to the whole world the character of 'the “unemployed ” . farce, so far., as ■Christchurch is concerned, at any rate. Had the scene of the occurrence been in any district but Canterbury the Colonial 'Treasurer might perhaps have been less pliable. We trust, however, that the affair will be the text of some very de--cisive preventive action on the part of Parliament next session.

Another and another terrible disaster at sea ! It is saddening to reflect how many have occurred of late, and what a hecatomb of valuable lives has been sacrificed to what cannot reasonably be designated, in legal language, as “The act of God.” The remarkable feature about almost all of these frightful maritime catastrophes is that they iseem to happen in fine or moderate weather. We do nob in our Australian disasters reproduce the circumstances of the Royal Charter and London affairs. ‘Those ill-fated steamships were overwhelmed by the fury of the storms, but the New Zealand and Australian mishaps are conGned so markedly to moderate weather that it would seem to be safer to go to sea only in howling tempest. When vessels in fair weather run ashore on a well-lighted coast, or steam full butt against one another, it is palpable that somebody must be in fault. Either they do not give the land a wide euongh berth, but are “ cutting off corners,” or else they run faster than is safe in thick weather, or else the commanders content themselves with rough-and-ready, rule-of-thumb computations of distance. All these fatal disasters could not occur without there being some carelessness or incompetence as a primary or contributory cause, and it is high time that very stringent measures were taken to bring to a severe reckoning all who are wholly or partially culpable for any disaster at sea. For the sake of the numbers of lives which are daily at stake the most rigid justice should be meted out in all these cases ; indeed, we need several sharp examples to operate as a warning to these free-and-easy navigagators who are responsible for recent mishaps.

Last week we referred to the decision arrived at by the Government >to carry out a new policy of strict economy, both in the general expenditure on public services and in the disbursement of the Public Works Fund, in consequence of the serious falling off in the revenue and the unfavourable result of the last loan. We notice that our statement is corroborated by the Ministerial journals. Theimperative need of stringent retrenchment has long been urged in our columns, and we need hardly say that we are glad the Government at last recognise the necessity of looking the situation fairly in the face and adopting the same course that commends itself to every honest man when he unfortunately finds himself in pecuniary difficulties. He at once reduces his outgoings, and so must we. What is the duty of the individual is equally incumbent on the communitj. Retrenchment is always a disagreeable process, no less so to the community than to the individual, but, unhappily, it sometimes cannot be avoided with honour or safety, and the present is one of such cases. Disagreeable as the process may and must be, we cannot doubt that in taking the more prudent and honeßt course, the Government will have the approval of all who cherish the best interests of the country.

It is difficult to see how the merits of the Glenbervie fence affair are affected by the

statement that the extravagant fence so ridiculously placed was a part of the price paid for the right of roadway. That only goes to show that the cost of carrying out the Glenbervie-cutting fad has been much greater than it ought to have been, and we doubt if even now the full measure of the expense is known. Nor does the explanation mitigate the absurdity of placing such fence close to the foot of a cliff. Had more space been left, trees might have been planted, but now there is no room for this to be done favourably. The whole affair—cutting, fence and all—is a nonsensical piece of extravagance.

A PROCLAMATION, published in a special Gazette issued last week, further prorogues Parliament from the 16th of the presentmonth—thedate fixed byaprevious proclamation—to the 16 th of February. The prorogation is merely a formal one, as it is not intended that Parliament shall meet then for the despatch of business.

News was received by telegraph some days ago that the South Australian Advertiser had published a letter from its London correspondent, in which it was stated that the Bank of England had refused to subscribe (1 inscribe) further New Zealand loans, and that the AgentGeneral for New Zealand had been notified accordingly. The matter having been brought to the notice of the Government, Sir Julius "Vogel telegraphed to Sir Francis Bell, who has replied that there is no foundation whatever for the statement made in the South Australian Advertiser.

A noteworthy illustration of the difference between the management of railways in private hands and under Government is afforded by the recent action of the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company with reference to the Sunday trains to Paikakariki. Finding they did not pay to run, as few passengers cared to go out so far on a Sunday, the Company took them off at once and made Pliiumerton the Sunday terminus. Yet the experience as to traffic has been even worse in respect of the Upper Hutt Sunday trains, for hardly anybody at all travels to or from Upper Hutt on Sunday. Yet political pressure keeps on these trains, involving an extra expense of several hundreds a year, and Sunday labour for an additional staff of officials at a dead loss to the Colony. The difference speaks for itself. No wonder the expenditure increases. We are glad to hear, however, that there has been a slight improvement in the New Zealand Railway returns during the past month, although there is still a very heavy deficiency as against the estimated receipts. Hopes are entertained that the revenue may be further assisted by the approaching holiday traffic at Christmas and New Year, and strenuous efforts are bbing made to keep the working expenses as low as possible consistently with the maintenance of safety and efficiency, but the largely increased mileage that has now to be worked, and the unremunerative trains that are run in consequence of political pressure, necessarily increase the expenditure very materially, while yielding no proportionate return.

It must be confessed that the aspect of the long-standing dispute between the Harbour Board and City Council grows more and more disheartening. After approximating so closely to an agreement that everybody believed and hoped the end was in sight, the two bodies now seem to have rebounded farther apart than ever. We publish in another column a very full report of last week’s Harbour Board meeting, from which it will be seen that several members took a despondent view of the prospects of agreement, and the whole tone of the discussion was of a nature rather to exacerbate than to smooth down the strained and irritated feeling which unfortunately exists between the two bodies. This is to be regretted, but it is not easy to see how the trouble is to be got over, unless one side will consent to make some concession, or unless the whole question is referred to arbitration, an unbiased outsider being chosen as arbiter. It is high time that some step of this sort were taken, for the present dispute is discreditable to the city, as weU as an obstacle to progress.