Daily Circulation, 1750. The Oamaru Mail. THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 1899.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXIV, Issue 7496, 20 April 1899, Page 2

Daily Circulation, 1750. The Oamaru Mail. THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 1899.

There is a great Tory cackling over Mr Rolleston's speech at Riccarton. There never was such a speech. It is just such a deliverance as will take hold of the people willy-nilly- Even the Lyttelton r limea —the Otago Daily Times claims—has expressed its approval of it. There is sapiency—bluff honesty—statesman-like prescience—in every word. The fuss that is being made is evidently induced by surprise that a man who was suuh a failure as an administrator —who allied himself with the political champions of the privileged classes—could give expression to such admirable sentiments. He has nothing to say against the Government policy—that policy which the people _of the colony entrusted to the willing brains and hands of their leaders. It would be as much as his political life would be worth to denounce it. He is so jealous of what has been accomplished by those who turned out the wretched Administration of which he was a member that he claims it all as the emanation of that Administration and its supporters. Land resumption, even, was theirs ;—at least, they thought about it and talked about it. So Mr Rolleston declares, and none of his class has ever yet been known to wickedly misrepresent. This being so, weassume that the Tory execrations with which the Government's announcement that they intended to take the large estates under a compulsory system were received were mere pleasantries all the prattle about confiscation was never intended to be taken seriously. But how many of the great landowners' broad acres would have been taken up if Mr Rolleston and his friends had remained in office ? We leave the conundrum to haunt the electoral intelligences in whose hands lies the fate of New Zealand. We leave them to evolve an answer in the light of the achievements of Mr Rolleston's friends, for it is with them the colony has to reckon ; and who are they 1 Who are Mr Rolleston's champions and sympathisers, we ask 1 It is an awkward question, the- reply to which would entail an admission fatal to Mr Rolleston's cause, though, for old acquaintance sake, and because of his pleasant and interesting personality, Mr Rolleston may be tolerated, and even admired by some as a relic of the past. Mr BoPeston is a member of a party generalled by Captain Russell. What an accommodating party ! How adaptable and reversible! Tie sage of Riccarton disburdens his Democratic soul to his Radical constituents, whilst Captain Russell pours out the vials of his wrath from Hawke's Bay on the heads of the authors of the policy which Mr Rolleston is compelled to admire in order to retain his seat. Mr Rolleston likes the works, but not the men. Oh, how he hates those who stand between him and the Ministerial benches. The logic of Mr Rolleston's views —if they can be said to have any such virtue—is that the colony ought to turn out Seddonand put in Russell, Then Mr Rolleston would be Minister for Lands with a chief who, with all his class, would though smilingly, we believe, hang every fellow who would lay his sacreligious hands on the broad acres of God's anointed. After having carefully considered Mr Rolleston's address, we are constrained to ask, If Mr Rolleston and his friends—if the Opposition —if those of whom the Otago Daily Times and the Canterbury Press are the mouthpieces —have advocated all that the Ballance and Seddon Governments have carried into effect—then what have they all been vilifying the Government for Can men be trusted who are liable to such aberration? We note Mr Rolleston's references to " The Shadow of Tammany," and reflecb with satisfaction that, though Tammanyism was a reality in the days of his administration, when all the appointments were given to one class —when no poor man or boy need a pply_it has admittedly been reduced to a "shadow" under a more honest and equitable management of the colony's affairs. We note, too, that he condemns selling the land and spending the proceeds in public works. Why, then, did he do it to the extent of millions when he was in office, and when there was land to sell, and why did he not generously admit that such a sin had not been committed by the Liberal Government of the day ? Everything that has been done seems to meet with Mr Rolleston's approval as the decoy of the Tory Party ; but he does not like the Government. He has a preference for those nice men, who, according to Dr Johnson, " do naßty things."