ECHOES OF THE WEEK.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1404, 26 January 1899, Page 19

ECHOES OF THE WEEK.

GY SCRUTATOR.

Bang the big drum, sound the tinkling cymbal, wave tho banner and get ready tti "feoeray,” my Opposition friends, for your leaders are going on the “ stump.” Of course it will bS ah “awful bore, dontcherknow,” lor the Captain to leave the care of his sheep and his oxen—and his racehorses —and trouble himself about tickling tho ears of the groundlings, and I fancy that in his heart of hearts lie is sick of the whole business of party politics. But strenuous “egging on” has at last had its effect and so like Don Quixote, he will soori sht off on his Weary mission of rescuing that unfortunate Damsel in Distress, tho Colony, from the wicked clutch of the Seddon Ministry and “ tilt at windmills ” with the best of thorn.

As we may ho certain that the Opposition “ stump ” orators will put forward no policy of their own before the country, for the very excellent reason that they don’t possess anv. it is with feelings of the utmost good will and friendliness that I suggest a few topics upon which they would do well to hold forth. They might be good to explain why, for two long sessions, they systematically obstructed tho progress of public business, stonewalling a bill night after night, and then collapsing and letting clause after clause pass unnoticed and unchallenged ; they might also explain why—if they can find any just and sensible reason—-they deliberately wasted three out of every four afternoon sittings all through last session in debating trivial points, blocking the real business of the country and wasting valuable time and the hardearned money of the taxpayers. They might also condescend to say—some of tho “ leaders ” especially—why, after abusing ministers for not answering stupid, meaningless questions, they were often absent from the Chamber when such questions were answered.

On the subject of returns they might also take the trouble to inform an anxious public why, after pestering the Government to prepare complicated returns, involving a heavy expenditure of time and money, they allowed these returns, when given, to lie on the table, of the House unnoticed and never made the slightest reference to or use of them. They might —but of course they won’t—take the country into their confidence as to the miserable devices they used to bring about “ snatch ” divisions, in which, despite all their smartness, they were nevertheless defeated. An interesl ng topic also would bo their intrigues with the Left Wing, to the individual members of which party they refer privately in terms of ill disguised contempt and dislike, but with whom, for party purposes they openly cabal.

On tho interesting subject of the now notorious “ charges ” made by the member for Patea, they could, if they would, tell a very curious tale of their exultation over the thrice contemptible and utterly false assertions and base inuondoes of Mr Hutchison; of how they saw with disgust the “ engineer hoist with his own petard; ” they might tell of the open dismay with which they listened to tho unravelling of the “ Bun Tuck” plotting and scheming, and witnessed the discomfiture of their friend and colleague. Indeed on this subject, if they read the evidence given before the committee they could give the public a most wholesome sad significant insight into the methods, by which their friend “ Patca ” sought to compass the Premier’s ruin and dismal y failed. And while they are “ stumping ” the country they might also inform the electors of their intention when they get into office—echo answers “ When ?”—that they intend to replace the Land and Income Tax by the Property Tax, to repeal the Lands for Settlement Act, and do away with “ this egregious folly” as one of them call it, the Old Age Pensions Act. All these things and many more that I could mention did not the limits of space forbid, would form quite a delightful discourse. I shall await with the greatest curiosity the first effort at Opposition “ stumping. It will, I fancy ,afford material,for an interesting analysis.

An Adelaide paper, tho “ Critic,” cries “a plague on both your (political) houses,” and calls for parliamentary reform on the following drastic lines Reduction of number of Assembly members to 24 and Legislative Council to 15 ; abolition of Hansard in every shape of form ; abolition of second reading speeches, except introductory speech by introducer ” (sic). The “ Critic ” holds the opinion that by abolishing Hansard £SOOO would bo saved and the “ floodgates /of talk would be stopped.” Don’t you believe it, Mr “Critic.” Judging by New Zealand’s experience it is impossible to stop the “floodgates of talk.” In that direction the time limit is a failure and I question very much whether tho abolition of “Hansard” would make the slightest difference to the Taylors, Moores, Buchanans and others who, to use Disraeli’s famous expression, are so constantly “intoxicated with the exuberance of their own verbosity.’” Besides, if you abolished “ Hansard,” there would be no reliable record of the faults of omission and commission of which our legislators are guilty. What on earth would the “ hecklers ” do at election time ? They would be helpless for lack of material. And “heckling” affords so much innocent recreation —to all save the heckled that it would be a pity were the good old custom to fall into compulsory disuse.

It is a right and proper thing that there should be some public memorial in honour of Sir George Grey, but, the

stalthe’ propfosai liketfi fife? fiot.- Buck statues arid busts as we have already erected iri honorir of our public riicri are Oertainly more Oaleulated to provoke' ridicule rather thari a feeling of reverence. Orie has not tfr go out of Wellirigton for an example of what I mean, arid why risk the repetition erf an old mistake P The best and most suitable memorial to the famous Pro-Consul that the colony could establish would be four Grey scholarships at our University) Colleges. For almost as much as he was a politiciaif lie. was fttl ardent scholar. No man loved literature' frir its own sake more than Grey, and no mrird fitting testimonial to his memory could th6're be thari the scholarships I have mentioned. LefAnckland have its statue if it likes, but if Wellington decides, as I hope it may decide, upon some local and special testimony let it take the form of a Grey Scholarship at the Victoria College.

Apropos to the Grey memorial proposals it is pleasant to notice that the northern Maoris ftrO entering very heartily into the matter; No man had the good of the native race more at heart than Grey, and amongst them his name will ever he held in grateful rememberance. Here again the scholarship proposal seems to me to be singularly appropriate. Many of the young natives are taking very kindly to higher education, and at Te Aute College especially excellent work is being done. A couple of Grey Memorial Scholarships for native youths would permanently and most suitably honour the grand old man’s memory.

The Canterbury Anglican parson who recently told his congregation that “he drew the line at progressive euchre ” was no doubt actuated in his objection to an innocent pastime by tho most conscientious and entirely worthy motives, but why, if we come to examine the matter closely, should nob a clergyman take a hand at whist or euchre like an ordinary mortal ? Euchre may not be an entirely intellectual pastime, but it exercises the brains of the players to some extent and morally, in itself, is no more deserving of being held “an accursed thing” than is chess. As for whist, did not Mrs Battle, on Charles Lamb’s authority, derive much moral comfort from her favourite game, and in England, I know of my own experience, that many a hardworking vicar, and genuine Christian, dearly loves an occasional rubber. And if the gambling element be eliminated why object to '“progressive .euchre?” True there are prizes—l generally drop for the booby’s reward myself—but they are generally of a most prosaic and useful character and not in any way that I can see calculated to injure the morals of the most puritanical maiden or youth. Perhaps it may be that the Vicar of Fendaltown objects to progressive euchre in that it usually involves the meeting—not to say flirting—of young men and maidens, who cast sheep’s eyes at each other whilst the card (and love) hardened oldsters collar the tricks—but then the samo objection applies to church choirs, the “ coming home ” from whose practices have long been recognised as granting highly favourable opportunities for flirtations. Anyhow, now that the Vicar of Fendaltown admits his willingness to swallow the once awful camel (of honour-, ing the Dramatic Society with his presidency) he might very well, I think, open his mouth to the gnat of progressive euchre. Is he a bachelor —and shy ?

Kissing is a. pastime which is naturally and perennially /popular, hut there is a time for all things, and when the wife of a “prominent court official” is soundly “ bussed ” in the open street in broad daylight, the male osculator is apt to find himself in trouble. It was whilst glancing over the ever amusing columns of the New York “ World ” the other day that I happened across the attractive headline, “ High price for a hug,” and read of the ill fate of one J. E. Moore, private in A Battery of the First Maine Artillery. Down in Sunny Savannah in Georgia the gallant Moore spied an especially attractive dame “ doing the block,” and her he promptly embraced—with an air-rending smack. The dame happened to be the wife of a prominent court official, and the over amorous Moore found himself mulcted in a fine of 50 dollars or an alternative of “ six months in the chain gang.” His misfortune was that he had let too many months go by since returning from Cuba. For the first week or two after the troops came back the men were simply smothered in kisses—and it was not on their initiative either. But tho excitement lias calmed down a little by this time.

Another kissing item in the same issue of the “World” is headed, “Kissed Coachman goes free ! ” This reads as follows :

NEW YORK, December 10.—A coachman may not be punished if his employer’s wife happens to kiss him. Thomas McDonald is a free man. Ho was arrested last November, charged with showing an affection beyond his station for the wife of Thomas O. Bullock, liis employer. The testimony at the trial, in Morristown, N.J., showed that Mrs Bullock had kissed the coachman. Judge Vreeland, after careful deliberation, discharged McDonald to-day, holding that there was “no ground for action.” The case was tried without a jury. h

I have copied out the paragraph verbatim et litteratum, even unto the mysterious “fi fi” which appears at the end. Of course it is a Linotype vagary, but how remarkably appropriate to the paragraph. One could almost imagine it being the sly jape of some humorousminded compositor, for “fie fie certainly applies to the highly indiscreet Mrs Bullock.

“ Presbyterian ” writes as follow's’ n “ Scrutator,” —In your last Echoes yott infer that not many of the members of Presbyterian and Anglican Churches are PrOiifiationists. I protest against this, Tho oilier churches have not this splendid Uik,tm to themselves. I could give you dairies of very many prominent memhOrtJ of both churches who are in the very forefront of the movement. We are proud to belong to it, and certainly are not out m trie cold. As regards vho utterance of Dr Hosking, we are getting too advanced in Prohibition maUer* now to take offence when some ovCTKcalous member of the ranks slates a church because a member or two of it err. We know that the church is not to be blamed any morn thart sober members of parliament because some members get disgracefully drurik, Folks in real earnest say extravagant th tigs sometimes, but don’t think that as a body of church members we are going to take offence. We are too much m earnest over the getting rid of the li ; uor, and in getting rid of it the Presbyterians at any rate are not going to be behind, I can assure you. I am, c e., “ Presbyterian.” I aril sorry to see that “Presbyterian” thinks so little of Dr Hosking’s outrageous slandering of the Anglican Church that he merely passes it over as “over zealous.” Perhaps it members of the Presbyterian Church had been referred to, there would have been a stronger protest. Also it is appai cut!y no discredit to Prohibitionists, as a body, that one of their leading members should have used such language as that reported of Dr Hoskings. . Can it be that “ Presbyterian” considers slander a fair weapon so long as it is used in connection with “ The Drink ” ? I should be sorry tp believe that Presbyterians, or members of any other church could hold such opinions. And will my correspondent please note that “ slating ” does not necessarily imply slander.

It would be well, I think, were Commissioner Tunbridge, or someone else interested in the defection and punishment of fraud, to obtain the most detailed information as to how the English police manage to get convictions against these humbugs, the so-callc-i “palmists.” At Hull, so I see by the Home papers, the magistrates have roccnvy been treating the “palmists” with g; oat severity. All private and public ail o no Is to practise “palmistry” in any shape or form, are treated as illegal and several professors of the “art” have been very heavily fined. Now if his can bo done at the great Yorkshire port why not in New Zealand? In what way is our law different to the English law under wh’ch these impudent charlatans can be got at, whilst here in New Zealand all attempts to stamp out the nuisance has been attended by failure ? The annual cop of fools is unfortunately as large as it was when Carlyle uttered his famous dictum on the subject, but it is the duty of the State to protect even fools from rogues, and palmistry, as practised by the ignorant, vulgar quacks who dc'u'le silly women—and silly men—into having “their hands read,” is roguery of a peculiarly obnoxious description. The nuisance was imported into New Zealand from Sydney, that happy hunting ground of quacks and humbugs, medical and otherwise, and there is only too muck reason to believe that palmistry in this colony is a cloak for illegal medical practices, just as it notoriously is on tho other side, and if the Hull police can deal effectively with the evil, surely similar no inn ought to be possible here. (Madame Radalyski in the Yarra murder case, is a palmist and futurist.) I read in the “ Times ” that the “ question of street improvement is a touchy one with City Councillors.” If it is not, it certainly ought to be. for I can assure the City Solons that it is a very “touchy” one with the citizens of Wellington. The may orbs head is supposed to be chock-a-block with all kinds of wonderful schemes but before we put up an expensive town hall, or enter upon other big enterprises, the streets should first receive attention. For the condition of our streets is a public scandal, a scandal to which all the City, outside the Council, appears to bo fully alive. By all means let tho “ touchiness ” of City Councillors, on the subject of street improvement, continue. Some good may come of it.

Dear “ Scrutator,” —Doubtless, most of your numerous readers are more or less grateful for the scraps of news supp’ied to them from time to time, both local and general, and for myself I can say that I am in sympathy with editors of public journals in their desire to obtain “good copy” for their papers, but I think that the publication of the names' of all the unfortunates who applied for okl age pensions in Welling ton was a piece of refined cruelty, unworthy of the boasted enlightened journalism of the nineteenth century. I don’t say that they were not within their rights in publishing information obtained in open Court, nor do I say that the strictest investigation ought not to be made by the Court; but whence the necessity to blazon it forth to the world? Why have the newspapers hitherto abstained from publishing the names of all applicants for charitable aid until they appeared m Court in support or their pension claim when some of them were forced to admit that their hitherto means of , living was by charitable aid ? I, and X thousands of others, could have foregone that precious hit of information, was not that cruelty? Many of them may have become callous, but depend upon it, it was a bitter pill for many of them to swallow. An axiom, long since established in our Courts of Justice, viz., that it were better that three guilty persons escape justice than one innocent person should ffer,

applies in the administration of the “ Old Age Pension Act,” in that it would be better that three unworthy person# should receive pensions under the Act than that the conditions should be such that one deserving colonist, in absolute need, should be unable to suffer himself, or herself, to submit to humiliating conditions such as these. Dwelling, as in all probability he or sho will, in one or other of the numerous “little Pedlingtons’' to be found in New Zealand, one can quite understand their objections. For proof that it was for the “ deserving ” colonists that the Act was meant, one has only to read the preamble. I was glad to see that Mr A. W. Hogg, M.H.R. for Masterton, entered his protest against this undue publicity, and produced letters in support of it, and that the Hon the Minister of Justice, with such of his colleagues as were in Wellington, also disapproved of this undue publicity, and I am quite sure that the Hon the Premier will also disapprove of it. I, myself, know of quite a number of old colonists who are in every way eligible for the pension, hut would suffer death rather than submit to the humiliating conditions such as are now imposed, and knowing this, I looked up all the Hansard reports and' carefully read the whole of them, with the result that I was very much disgusted, as any unbiassed ' person must be, with the attitude taken up by the Opposition. There was not one who dared say he was not in favour of an Old Age Pension Bill, because they knew the country was clamouring for it, but every speech of the Opposition, and every amendment was in the direction of blocking and killing the Bill. The leader of the Opposition struck the key note by branding it as “ one of the worst forms of chdritable aid.” This was taken up by his first lieutenant, tho rank and file following suit on tho same lines, with just, perhaps, a little less hypocrisy in it. 1 will say nothing of the scandalous and libel ous speeches made by them when the House was in Committee, and they were not reported, but were presuming on their Parliamentary privileges, beyond saying that I submit them all to the serious consideration of all old colonists of forty and fifty years’ standing and upwards, aud I have no fear but that their children, and grandchildren, numbering tens of thousands of voters, will at the next general election take A ery good care that the places of the great majority of the Opposition will know them no more.—l am, etc., Observe?..