The Otago Witness, WITS WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. (THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 1893.) THE WEEK.

Otago Witness, Issue 2058, 3 August 1893, Page 27

The Otago Witness, WITS WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. (THURSDAY , AUGUST 8, 1893.) THE WEEK.

<■ HsaguamaUndnatura, aliud MpientUdlxlt."— Jcrv«iui. )• goodnature and good ien«e rooit>v:>r. Join."— Pop».

The principal result of the financial debate, now happily a thing of the Net past, fs the final burst-up of Proceeds, the pretence of " selfreliance " with which the country has been industriously humbugged for many months past. So far as the Financial Statement itself is concerned, we suppose there ib now little difference of opinion. By common consent it is a somewhat poor affair, though not greatly below the average —of large pretensions but mediocre value, and much spoilt as to its effects by a profusion of tawdry trappings inartißtically disposed. But with the Financial Statement as suob, members did not greatly concern themselves, preferring to compare the claims made by the Ministry for popular favour with the general results of recent administration so far as the persistent. and suspicious secrecy maintained by the Government would permit these to be known. No doubt the outcome of tbe financial debate admits of being stated from various party standpoints; though the absence of anything like the former support from their party was one of its features which must have been most unpleasantly conspicuous to Ministers, as well as significant to tbe country. But if it be sought to state the most distinct conclusion of all those that might bo drawn from the recent discussion — in other words, to define the lesson most clearly indicated as the net result of the great flood of talk from both sides— we think tbe finel breakdown of the "self-reliance" babble must be assigned as the answer. There can be few indeed left in the country— there cannot, we hope, if there is to be any belief at 'all in the .intelligence of our legislator?, be anybody at all in the House itself — who does not now know that all the time Ministers have been pretending to have stopped bor- j rowing they have b9en virtually borrowing and kite-flying in every direction ; tbat all the time they have been claiming to rely for revenue on the colony's resources they have been spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of borrowed money husbanded for them by their predecessois, and spending it at a far higher rate than ever their predecessors did; and that what they call "surpluses " are partially genuine, bat yet composed largely of sums which either do duty to [swell the balance sheets year after year { (being " carried forward " as it is called) or are only secured by the process of greatly increasing the net public debt.

Sine say consider it a very deplorable thing that the Ministerial pretences Jfo Harm in about the state of oar finance the Truth, nave thus been exposed without any flinohings before the country. Some may even oonslder it an ungracious, and unpatriotic thing of Sir

Robert Sbout, Sir John Hall, and the othe principal agents in effecting the exposure, that they should have determined rather to avow than to conceal the truth, and should not have spared the country the unpleasantness, and Ministers the humiliation, of perfect frankness where artifice has hitherto been the successful rule. But this seems to be a very short-sighted view. It can only be honestly held either by those who make a practice of never thinKiDg at all, but are in the babit of simply holding out their noses humbly to Ministers in order to have the leading-strings clipped on, or by those who think that party justifies everything and that the interests of the country must be made subordinate to the personal convenience of those who are ia power. No one who really cares about honesty and good government, no matter which side he may be on, will bring himself to regret the final collapse of all the tall talk about " self-reliance "whioh is now so universally known for the sham it always was. Nor will any patriotic New Zealander dream of blaming these earnest and capable politicians who have insisted on the country knowing the caked truth. Oa the contrary, their names will be held in all tbe greater respect — from Sir John Hall, tbe most capable or them; Sir Robert Stout;, the most uncompromising and emphatic; Mr Rolleston, the most impressive; and Mr Shera, the most impartial, dewn to the most tedious twaddler who laboriously stood by the policy of honesty, the country will remember them all. The Opposition has done good work herein ; and at least half a dozen of its chiefs, besideß the one or two we have named, deserve the credit which is, always ungrudgingly assigned where earnestness and capicity are found in association. As regards the effect of the demonstration of the real state of the finances— the perpetual borrowings, the hand-to-mouth contrivings, the precarious dependence upon " windfalls " and the like, and the protuse increase in the dissipation of former leans— upon the Ministry itself, that is their affair, and comparatively of minor interest to the country. Unquestionably the gravity of the case against them for the long deception which has been practised is made graver by the extraordinary affair of the £100,000 error — graver still by the successive (and mutually inconsistent) explanations cf it which are being attempted under pressure by Mr Seddon. But these latter things are being duly looked into, and can be left for the present. The main thing is now that the country does at last know for certain j what such mighty efforts have been made to [ onceal— in financial statements and one of them ; and in spite of the appalling gush ot talk, that is a tact which alone would make it impossible to assert thut the financial debate has been barren of results.

The contention of our Catholic fellow

citizens for State aid to their Tho " Godless sectarian schools is now prac-

System" tically hopeless. It is hardly Complimented, too much to Bay that its saccess is beyond the range of possible politics; more' especially, as the signs of the times point to a determination on the part of Sir Robert Stout, the natural leader of the secularists, to establish himself in a position of higher influence than he at present commands. It is inevitable tbat these things should be reoognised by leading Catholic laymen, notwithstanding the nndiminished fire and ardour with which certain ecclesiastics of that church continue to urge the depravity and injustice, from their point of view, of the existing educational system. And though in the Catholidf Church the lay influence may not so considerably affect the proceedings of the clergy as is the case in sects of more democratic constitution, stLU we may take" it for granted that there is little real bslief in ecclesiastical circles that even the remarkable electoral principles lately enunciated from a local episcopal pulpit will have any real effect in altering the determination of the people of this country to maintain against all attacks the only system of education which can ever long remain really national, It may have been the perception, more or less complete, of this truth that induced Bishop Luck of Auckland to apply recently to the Education Board of that district for an official inspection of the Catholic schools. Whether such was the origin of the application or not, however, it was an important and significant one, if only because, it concedes at least some attributes of good to the "godless" system against which the existence of those sohools is intended to be a standing protest. Moreover, it is evident that the Catholic laity whoße children attend the sectarian schools have already experienced the want of independent inspection, and of some official (as distinguished from a merely sacerdotal) guarantee tbat their children are not suffering educationally by their comparative isolation from the standard teaching of the time. These children have to compete in the higher subsequent training with those who have been brought up at the public schools ; and the anxiety of their parents is therefore natural and reasonable. It is to Bishop Lack's credit, as well as an evidence of his sagacity, that he has met whai was evidently a growing danger of the transfer of ohildren from the sectarian to the unseotarian schools by the timely concession to a natural sentiment, which his application to the Education Board unquestionably represents.

With regard to the merits of Bishop Luck's demand, they have been pat Reciprocate forward with much force and tlio moderation by that prelate, Compliment, and they are a fair subject for serious consideration by the authorities. The bishop makes his request under section 98 of the act, which provides that " Where the teachers or managers of any private school desire to have their school ' inspected by an inspector, such teacher or managers may apply to the board to authorise such inspection, and the same, when authorised, shall be conducted in like manner as the inspection of public echools." There is no definition in the act of the term " private schools," but it was almost unnecessary for Bishop Luck to insist that Catholic sectarian sohools come properly under the meaning of the clause. The Auckland Board of Eduoation will oettainly &ot dream of disputing bis claim that the mere, fact of these. schools.

being sectarian does not remove them from the category of private schools. The board, however, regards the clause we have quoted as permissive and not mandatory upon them. We think this interpretation open to question, as the expression " when authorised " instead of "if authorised" would seem to indicate that the Legislature did not contemplate any refusal of such claims, at hast under ordinary circumstances. Laaving aside this point, however, which if doubtful can be dealt with by amendment, it is certainly of importance td determine, now that the question has been definitely raised, whether the bishop's olaim should on public groands be deemed one proper to be entertained. We think it should, and we shall be glad if the Minister for Education, to whom tbe bishop has appealed from tbe adverse decision of the board, can see his way to afford due facilities in the way of carrying out what seems to as a reasonable and proper request in the interest of Catholic parents and Catholic children alike, as well as ia the inteiests of the State itself.' No principle essential to the present national system of education would be violated by such compliance, while it would avoid accentuating unnecessarily what is already felt, however erroneously, as a hardship and a grievance.

At the same time we do not altogether blame the Auckland Education Board for its hesitation. It is in cbarge of a portion of the public revenues as well as of an education district, and it is fully entitled to bring into prominence the fact, if it be such, that extra expense would be involved in acceding to the Catholic demand for separate official inspection of their schools. Having done ita duty in this respect, however, we hopa that it will net offer any sustained objection should the Minister, actirg as a Court of Appeal, adopt tbe view we have here expressed. The hasty and somewhat petty action of a local priest in retaliation for the board's decision will doubtless be recalled by the rev. gentleman on farther consideration, and in any case need not stand in the way of a cordial settlement.

Sir Kobert Stoat is in rather a carious position in regard to the negotiaThe tions for the continuation of Midland. the Midland railway. When he was in office and began the thirg — first with the astonishing Meiggs's proposal, and afterwards in a more legitimate way with the present company — he professed to consider this^ work the, most important that any Government could have to deal with. The fact that his Government ! could not have lived a week without tbe Bupj port o£ the Canterbury " railway party," whose price was the Midland "or bust," may reasonably be considered to have had something to do with the fervency of Sir Robert's desire for the union of the east and the west ; but as that fact is not given prominence ia the reports of his speeches at the time, he stands committed to an enthusiastic support at any price— even at the price of Meiggs. Two millions of acres was the modest endowment with which Sir Robert parted in order to set the company (and with it his Government) on. their legs; and the inconveniently long memory of pressmen and politicians has been a thorn in his side ever since, especially when his denunciations of the freehold tenure have bean moire than usually ecstatic, or his warnings about the alienation of the public estate exceptionally solemn and. impressive. Sir Robert, it is true, invariably retorts that before the actual deeds were signed he was oub of office, and hence that, though he pledged the colony, the formal fulfilment of the pledge fell to be signed by another hand. We have never quite seen' what satisfaction Sir Robert gets oat of this ; but it is undoubtedly a fact, and there may be minds which will assimilate it in 'a sense exculpatory of the Government which made the promise and incriminatory of the one whicb merely failed to repudiate it afterwards.

However that may be, Sir Bobert Btout's contract did not long keep his Government on its legs, and it is now apparent that it has not kept the company on its legs either. Tbe company keeps edging up for more, and squirming and wriggling under its difficulties to Each an extent tbat in a doable sense the name of " The Oliver Twist Company, Limited," would be a good substitute for its present designation — whiph never meant anything that anybody could make out. A good deal depends upon Sir Robert Stoat's action in the matter, and Sir Bobert is hampered not only by his original action in starting the contract (including the Nelson section, of course) but by bis subsequent denunciations of the Atkinson Government for going on with it. The company, however, says it can't' go en at all if it does not get what it now a6ks, and it is pretty safe to predict that something will be patched up before the general election.

iMr Hennikei Heaton is irrepressible. When he turns his unquestionable The' Member energy into such profitable for Australia, channels as tho? c with which his name is principally associated in connection with postal reform, he is capable of fine work, and has done more than he gets proper credit for. When he pats on frills as an - Australasian colonist entitled, by some undisclosed or more probably non-existent commission, to speak for " the colonies," he usually succeeds in making a fool of himself. Some questions have just been put by him to the Secretary of State for the Colonies which are peculiarly irritating from the point of view of those who do not think that Australasia's importance is advanced by "cheeky" suggestions to the Imperial authorities. They are also annoying to people who fail to see, what they doubtless ought to see, that because the M.P. for Ganterbttry comes from New South Wales he knows all about what is good for everybody in Australia, and New Zealand, even supposing that they don't know'i* themselves. Mr Henniker Heaton is reported by cable to have inquired" of the Secretary of State for, the Colonies whether he would appoint a Governor-general for these colonies instead of separate Governors for each. It may be Mr Heaton's opinion that we would be better off under a Governor-general than with the present system; if so, he is clearly entitled to his opinion. Moreover, he may be right. Bat as Mr Heaton's notorious purpose In these and all bis o -her adxajnoefl is to live tip to his nickname of "the member {or

Australia," it is Somewhat vexations to find that he perkily proposes to relieve, as of what our own statesmen and people have frankly acknowledged to be the serious practical difficulties in tbe way of intercolonial federation by getting the whole thing done behind our backs by the wave of an Imperial Minister's pen. As for his offer on behalf of Chief Justice Way, .of South Australia, to contract for the government of that colony for the next five years at a substantial reduction on current rates for the imported article, the thing is a gross impertinence if not directly authorised by that gentleman himself, and a gross offence against propriety if it is. Lord Ripon answered both Mr Heaton's questions in a very proper way. The memjber for Canterbury has taken' ib upon himself, since then, to "advise" the Australasian colonies to withdraw from the Postal Union. He will have to enforce his advice by arguments ranch more worthy, of the subject than those by which he substantiates his charge of " Post Office Plundering and Blundering" in his article under that name in the last " Nineteenth Century," if ha hopes to induce these colonies to break a bond — the most universal and comprehensive of ancient or modern times— which confers upon all its units such unique advantages as does the splendid institution called the Postal Union. /