OFFICIAL STARRING.

Otago Witness, Issue 747, 24 March 1866, Page 1

OFFICIAL STARRING.

(From the Daily Times, March 19 ) A Mr Moss and a Mr Hughes, have been parading about the Gold Fields, receiving dinners from the deluded miners, and delivering ppeeches in return. There are various circumstances which identify these gewlemen with two members of the Provincial Executive. The evidence is indeed so strong, that we believe we must conclude they are the sime, notwithstanding that the queer nature of their proceedings would seem to forbid the supposition. There h a Mr Hughes who fuinis the position of non- official member of the Executive. We have never been able to find any one who understands the meaning of this office. It is more incomprehensible than the secundo euro of the civic authorities. The only duties that we know of which pertain to the position, are the drawing a salary and sitting on the Government forms when the Council is in session. The non- official member is also permitted to altend Fxecutive meetings. It is, of course, no part of his duty to do so, in proof of which it need only be stated that the second non-official member, Mr Adam, the conscientious, lives at a distance from town that must preclude his attendance. Supposing that Mr Hughes is able to arrange that his salary be paid him in his absence, his other duty of attending the Provincial Council being- for the time fulfilled, he is doing nothing wrong in roaming about the country — his time is his own. But it has been whispered that Mr Hughes "wa9 on an official tour, i.e., that he was travelling at the expense of the Province. We mention the rumour only to say that it is impossible. It was by an oversight probably that in relating to the miners the grievances under which they labor, Mr Hughes omitted to mention the serious one of their having to contribute towards the support of the two useless non-official members of the Executive. Perhaps, with a modesty which does him credit, he did not like to obtrude his individuality too much upon his constituents, as he would have required to do, supposing he had explained the ornamental purposes to which he had been found •worthy to be put. But diffidence of the kind would surely have vanished if he had had to tell the miners of so serious a grievance as, that by framing a mission, the Government could put the country to a greater expense for the ornamental members of the Executive than was absolutely necessary. Surely Mr Hughes was starring on his own account, or he would have told the miners, "in me you see the lt victim of senseles3 extravagance."

But Mr Moss, — what took him abroad? lie is supposed to have the Treasury to look after. We are not aware that he was taking a holiday ; on the contrary, in his case it is also stated, only in much stronger terms, that he was on an official tour. In the name ol all that is sensible and economical, is Mr Moss to be permitted to entail a charge upon the country for the purpose of airing his eloquence? It would have been bad enough if he could have managed to be harmless, but it is too bad that he should have contrived to make himself mischievous. Nothing could be worse than that the Pro\incial Government should mix itself up with the Assembly elections, yet we find that Mr Mo=s and Mr Moss's statements have been fertile causes of controversy during some of the disputed up-conntry elections. Candidates have quarrelled over what he ha 3 said or denied his accuracy ; and to him is to be ascribed the introduction of the class element of the struggle.

There was no absolute harm, in Mr Moss's trying to humbug the miners about the privileges which lie and his partly had- "voluntarily "given them. It is easy on this head to undeceive them. The gold fields representation was not a gratuitous and spontaneous concession, a 9 Mr Mrss pretended ; but on the contrary it was a poor exchange given to the miners for the power taken lrom them of voting for the sup^rintendental elections. When the Otaso gold fields broke out, the miners, if au election had been corning oft, would have been able to exercise an absolute choice of fae Superintendent. This voting power was taken from them, and in its stead special representation was accorded to them of a much less dominant nature So much for Mr Moss's statement, " voluntarily then the 'old Identity' _ob- " tamed for them representation" in " the Provincial Council." But the mischievous part of Mr Moss's tour was the

success which greeted his efforts to stir up a class warfare between the squatting and mining classes. As usual, he was disingenuous. The instrument he employed was the 28th clause of the Gold Fields Amendment Act, and he managed to put this before the miners in a terribly obnoxious light, and to represesent that it was the work of the squatters. Quite a feeling against this class has in consequence been developed upon the gold fields. The fuss which Mr Moss has made about the clause is a? impolitic as it was wanting in candor. To begin with, it got in entirely against the will of the Otaaro members. It was expunged from the Bill in the Lower House, and re -inserted by the Upper House. A conference was then held, and it not until it was found that the period of the session was so late that further resistance would jeopardise the bill, containing powers most valuable to the miners for constructing Water Races, that the clause was reluctantly allowed to come into temporary operation. But the understanding wa3 clear that it was not to permanently remain. The advocates of the clause in the Upper House argued in its favor the uncertainty that hung round the land laws of Ota^o. We believe we may say there will be but little opposition to the repeal of tha clause following the settlement of the land question. But the question arises also, has Mr Moss correctly interpreted the meaning of the clause ? He seems to assume that it is retrospective ; that is to say, that it applies to gold fields proclaimed before the clause came into force. Not only is this not at all assured, but legal opinion, we believe, inclines in the contrary direction. In the absence of a direct reference to gold fields already proclaimed, it i 3 probable the Supreme Court, sensitively jealous of retrospectivelegislation, would hesitate to invest it with that interpretation. la this ca«e the argument against the clause having a retrospective operation is strengthened by the fact that the clause in the Gold Fields Act referring to compensation for Gold Fields already proclaimed, was not repealed, as it would have been, supposing the new clau-e was meant to refer to such Gold Fields.

The obviously prudent policy adopted by every one acquainted with the circumstances has been to save the clause from publicity, — to preserve it as 3ecret as possible until at the next meeting of the Assembly it could be remedied. But the blataut Moss could not keep his own counsel. We should be sorry to suppose he was intentionally mischievous. The blame, after all, is perhaps more to ba attributed to those who could allow one possessing so little prudence to have the opportunity of doing harm. Mr Moss ought to be kept at home.

It remains to be ad<ted, that as a member of the Government, he had no cause to attempt to create an agitation. No runholder had attempted to take advantage of the clause, and only in one case had any objection been raised against the abstraction of land from a run for agricultural purposes. Now that Mr Moss has directed attention to the clause, it is possible he may have invited advantage to be taken of it.