The Otago Witness. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. (THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1895.) THE WEEK.

Otago Witness, Issue 2179, 28 November 1895, Page 33

The Otago Witness. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. (THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1895.) THE WEEK.

"Xunquam aliud naLnrH, aliud saplenUa ilixit."— Juvenil. " Good nature aud good sense must c\er join." — Pope. The Southland meat freezing case is still sub jvdiee, and is therefore in A its essential features not a Recent Case, at subject for comment. There are, however, minor pom's in the case which are not in legal issue — points which give rise lo reflections that cannot be affected by the future history of the case — and to some of those only do we propose now to allude. The case reveals a good deal that was never intended to be revealed, and for (hat we are sorry. As a general rule it is well that what was written In confidence should remain undisclosed. But the demands of truth and justice make it necessary at times that confidences should be revealed, r.nd when that is the case there is not hit g for it but to endeavour to extract I msrul or historical profit out of the revelation. In this case of the Southland Meat Freezing Company we have a humble illustration of how history is made. As a rale human beings know little of the transactions that are taking place around them. They Bee resnlts, but the men who produca them, aud the 6pricgs and motives of their action, are bidden. The present is worked by under-currents, and the future brings these under-currents to the surface. In thie way the great under-cur-rents of history are brought into view, so that we of the present day may see much more clearly the true thoughts and motives of men of the past than their contemporaries did. Little turbid and trumpery undercurrents are brought to the surface also, and in the present case we see one of them. Mr Nelson clutched at the notion of attachiog a Cabinet Minister to his dealings in meat. The fact is admitted and done with. But why should he have been so anxious ? It was clearly not to make use of Mr Ward's name an an attractive one for a prospectus or an advertisement. There was even a desire to keep the connection secret as long as was possible. Where, then, was the advantage of a Cabinet Minister to Mr Nelson? The case itself gives no particular answer to the question. The evidence does not enter into particulars. The probability is that Mr Nelson had no definite idea in his mind as to how he could use Mr Ward, but simply thought it would be well to have him there to use (<yi a Oabiuet Minister) if the occasion arcse. His ideas, as expressed to Mr J. B.

Raid (the Dsar Jim of the correspondence), would, if freely interpreted, amount to something like this : "Mr Ward may ba, as you say he is, a smart business man, but he knows nothing whatever of sheep buying or freezing, and he is plunging in his purchases to such an extent that I fear he will bring trouble upon himself as upon us. Nevertheless he is a Cabinet Minister, and if you oan get him fast in your arms we may yet get something out of him in the way of influence which may compensate us for any trouble he may be to us now. It is always well to have a friend in court." We do not think we are doing any injustice to Mr Nelson in saying tbis was the turn of his mind, nor can we ccc that he has anything to be ashamed of in admitting the fact. Nor is Mr Ward to be held responsible for the fact that others thought he was a man whose ministerial position could be made of use in an emergency. To commence with, Mr Nelson might have found himself mistaken in his estimate of Mr Ward. But it does seem to open up the question as to bow far the gentleman who holds the position of Treasurer of the colony of New Zealand is to be mixed up with public companies and trading concerns. It is at least not pleasant to find a young man like Mr J. B. Reid placed in a position to angle for the Colonial Treasurer, and congratulate himself upon having got him secured in the net. In England the rule is that an individual on assuming Cabinet office shall divest himself of his bnsiness engagements — retire, as it were, for the time ftom the conflicts of businees. We do not think that could be dose to tbe same extent in the colonies. The remuneration for public office is not good enough. It is expscted of the Native Minister that he shall not be mixed up in traffic with Native lands. Mr Cadman's fictitious retirement from such traffic will be fresh in the minds of our readers. But although the colony could not afford (o pass over for the pcet of Treasurer mon actively engaged in business, it may reasonably expect such men to concentrate their business and simplify their position, and as much aB possible stand aloof from its active and personal prosecution. Most business men can at any time withdraw superfluous irons frem the fire, and above all the man who assumes Cabinet effica ought to do so.

We have already said tbat Mr Ward is not to be held responsible for Crcsar's Wife, the opinion held by outsiders as to the extent to which he oould be made use of while a member of the Government. Bat; • the Colonial Treasurer certainly ought to be — and in the past, so far as we remember, he generally has been— a man whose style and tone in public life and out of it should be such as to exclude the notion that he could be made use of in any way whatever. After hi 3 assumption of office, at all events, ho should be specially careful to give no ground for tbe belief that he could for a moment Bwerve from the highest standard of public and private rectitude. If we must not expect too much from Ministers of the Crown, we have at least a perfect right to expeefc that they thall not forget they are Ministers of the Crown and not mere business huckstered It is certainly not pleasant to find the Colonial Treasurer, after be had sold his freezing work» to Nelson Brothers, writing to Mr Reid such a letter as the following : — Dear Reid, — Mr Nelson handed me acceptance of the freezer offer the' day he arrived here en route for England. He and I Bpenfc a day at the ftetzer, and as we were measuring and sketching for Mr Nelson's information, it is net to be wondered at that tho busy tongues of some who saw us have been at work. ' I have muco been asked twice if it wan true that Nelson had bought the works. Io? course denied ifc and said it was not true, as it may ' nob suit Mr Ntlson to Lave it known. Of course the sale does nol date till January, and essentially ifc ia quite true to deny any idle rumours of bußjbodies who wont to know more of other people's business than there is any necessity for. I think it only right to let you know this in case any inquiry may be made of you, as you may absolutely depend tbat no one wi'l be satisfied by inquiring of me or of anyone connected with me. Now, at tho time Mr Ward wrote this letter the sale of his works had been completed and all the terms finally agreed upon, though the sale itself was not to take effect until the following January (1894), Nelson Bco3. being, in fact, debarred from taking them over until then by tbe terms of their contract with the Southland Company. Why, then, should Mr Ward g) out of his way to "emphatically" deny tbat which was " essentially " true, and advise Mr Rsid to deny it at the came time? It was surely in such matters as these that Mr Ward completely gave himself away, impressed Mr Nelson with the idea tbat he could be made uee of if occasion arose, and impelled Mr Reid to warn his principal— as he did all through tho correspondence— that not too much reliance was to be placed on anything Mr Ward said. Had Mr Ward been a private individual it would have mattered little hew he was affected by the case. But he was a Minister of the Crown, and as such scrupulosity should have been the characteristic alike of his dealings and bis correspondence. If Mr Ward and his office < were held pretty cheaply by Mr Nelson and his coadjuters, he has himself to thank for it. Coming to a smaller matter we suppose tbat this case is but one in many thousands that show the dacgers and absurdities of familiarities in correspondence. There was really no harm in the " Dear Jim " of Ifif Nelson's epistolary style. Mr Bell put the matter very well when he explained that Mr Nelson is an elderly while Mr Reid is a young man, with whom be bas long been on familiar terms. Tbe correspondence, too, as we are here again reminded, was never intended for the public eye. But on the same principle that the unrestrained endearments of tho letters that occasionally appear in the divorce courts are rendered ghastly by the sordid setting of their later surrounding?, so the familiarities that seem natural enough at the moment in the private correspondence of particular persons bave an absurd look when read by the public in the bloodless columns of a newspaper. The wise man will avoid at all times familiarities in business. Even in social life it is well to use them with restraint ; from them courtesy is in constant danger. Dr Johnson invari- ; ably began his letters to Boswell with tha " Dear Sir " of ordinary Intercourse. And

if his equally invariable Sir or Madam in conversation was a little stiff for our modern taste, it at least lent dignity and self -respect to one of th.B oddest figures society has ever seen. s

There are several public offices of high importance at the present Impending moment either vacant or Appoiutments. about to become vacant, and of course there is much curiosity, and perhaps some little anxiety, as to how they are to be filled. The curiosity is confined to the politioal offices, tho anxisty to that of the jndgeship. The latter has been offered to Sir Patrick Buckley, but Sir Patrick has made no sign as to whether he intends to take or rtjeot it. We do not profess to know what the cause of his hesitation may be, but we honestly confess that we are thaokful for the hesitation, and most fciucerely hope that it will culminate in such a way as to serve the public interest — in other words, that Sir Patrick Buckley will be wise enough to resist the temptation — and it is a great one — to accept such a post. That the accident of befog Attorney-general gives Sir Patrick Buckley a conventional claim to the office 1b undisputed. We have never denied it. That fact does not warrant him in pressing the claim, however; it merely emphasises the lesson that an Attorney-general should always be chosen with a view to a possible conticgency of the kind. If the Chief Justiceship happened to be vacant, Sir Patrick Buckley's claim would be equally undisputed for that office also. Except in particular circumstances, as where the qualifications are striking and undisputed, the puisne judges are by the custom of the Constitution debarred from promotion to the chief place. It therefore uiually falls to the lot of the Attorney - general for the time being. Would anyone say that Sir Patrick Buckley was qualified for such a poßt ? We do not think go. In despite of his position as nominal head of the Law department it would be regarded throughout New Zealand as a scandalous political job. But the man who is not fit for the chief justiceship is at least not a very eligible candidate for a puisne judgeship, since the qualifications required are after all pretty much the same. For either post something more than a mere lawyer is required — qualities that depend upon temperament, character, and cast of mind. We have never Imitated to say that so far as there is material for judging — and it is not laoking — Sir Patrick Buckley has no qualification beyond the faot that he is a member of the legal profession. He has been offered the appointment-, and therefore he has a right to take it if he chooses. It may be argued that one inferior appointment would not affect the character of a bench already fairly strong. It is a vicious argument at best, and it leaves untouched the fact that if another couple of appointments of the same sort were made, the whole character of the New Zealand bench would ba completely and hopelessly altered for th 6 worse. We are therefore in hopes that Sir Patrick Buckley may yet solve the difficulty by declinicg the post. We are hero assuming that there is no truth in the statement that, failing Sir P. Buckley, Mr J. F. M. Frasar would be appointed. If that be bc — and we do not believe it — then in Heaven's name let us have Sir P. Buckley, and make the best of a bad job I As to tbe other appointments which may or may not follow Sir Patrick Buckley's decision, no one need concern himself much about them. If Sir Patrick Buckley goes to the bench, it is a matter of small importance who succeeds him in the Legislative Council. The Hon. W. P. Reavea is one of tbe few leading men in the House who has no qualifications for the post of Agent-general. He has doubtless qualities of his own which make him useful to the Government, but they are not business qualities, and these are of the first consideration in the selection of an Agent-general. The choice of a new Minister is also a matter of small importance. We may be pretty sure that, whoever the man may be, he will add no strength to the^ Cabinet — unless, indeed, Sir Westby Perceval should bs available. He at least would supply the solidity tbat cornea of moderation and good sense.

There are all sorts of tragedies for ever being enacted in human life.» The The vast proportion of them Tragedies pass entirely unnoticed, and of Life. when for any reason attontion is drawn to them, there is always to be found a set of shallow philosophers ready to believe that they were all avoidable or curable if only the organised bedy of the State would step in with the necessary preventive or curable measures. Sometimes, however, the tragedy is of the startling and ghastly kind, which rivets the horrified attention of the public. This sort is regarded as inevitable, and no doubt ia bo. Tbe humbler and commoner tragedy — the failure in the struggle of life which leads to poverty and misery, often to death or crime — is in general equally inevitable, but the fact is not recognised. Tho common belief is that society is wrongly constituted ; that some have too much, while others have, too little, and that if we could only secure a fair distribution everything would be right. It is the dream of the socialist, who cannot believe that the seeds of success or failure are inherent in the constitution of the individual as are the seeds of life and death. Only the other day two terrible tragedies were reported — one from Victoria, the other from New South Wales. In the one case a man occupying a good business position suddenly determined to destroy himßelf, his wife, and children, and succeeded only too well. The pathetic tragedy of the Dacres in Sydney bad many circumstances calculated to attract tho attention and sympathy of the public. They were members of the theatrical profession and of good standing in it. Neither of them, so far as we remember, had ever been in New Zealand, bub they were well known in other quarters of the world. They had started fair in their career too. The hnsband, we believe, was educated for tbe medical profession, and took to tbe stage by natural aptitude. The wife but a few years ago was an attractive, clever young actress who had often had the plaudits of success ringing in her ears. It was the business of their lives to give pleasure to the public, vet it was their own hacteas fate to be driven

to ieek rest and peace in deatb. Sucßstragedies are common enough nowadaysmuch commoner than they would appear to have been in the past. Why this should b« so it io hard to say. It may be that there is now generally less dread of death since those: principles of religion which so greatly in* fluenced tbe individual and collective lives of our ancestors began to relax their hold. Or it may be that the keener competition and the increased complexity of modern life makes greater demands on the individual. Perhaps both causes are in operation together. But however that may be, it is clear that tho tendency is to hold life cheaper than in the days of old. That is to say, the individual holds his own life cheaper : regard for the lives of the diseased, tbe weak, the degenerate, and the criminal bas increased with the growth of civilisation. But the tragedy in human life bas existed from the beginning, and it will continue ta the end. Its existence would appear to depend largely upon accident— upon the nature of the inherited constitution and the ciroumstanceß under which the battle of life is commenced as well as upon the couree of conduct pursued afterwards. Froude has somewhere said that Mary Queen of Scots might have led a happy, honest, and contented life had ehe been bom an Edinburgh fishwife. Given an unstably nervous constitution to start with— and thai is the heritage of some of the brighten! of mankind —it depends largely upon acoident whether life shall be a buccc-bs or a tragedy. Suoh a constitution is nob neces2anly a weak or a degenerate one, as philosophers of the Nordau stamp would hay« us believe ; but it is one which responds quickly to the application of stimuli, and if the stimulus is too often applied it soon wears itself out. Had it been the fate of Ddcre to remain a medical practitioner he might have lived to a good age. It is when the man of unstable, nervous system er. gages in work which makes a constant and exhausting demand uron the mind that he H apt to go to the wall. Failuo is intolerabla ta him, and the effort to avoid it may accelerate his fate, as the frantic struggles of a highly • string horse may sink him deeper in the bog. It is not woik that kills, but fretful worry acting on a tecsitive nature. When we talk of men ginking under tho struggles of life we usually mean the struggles which, make demands upon the mind and nervou* system alone. Work properly so called— the work which brings into harmonious operation the powers of mind and body alike — i« a preservative. It is impossible to regulate human affairs so that every man shall work in the sphere best suited' to his constitution and powers. If it. could be done doubtless many of the most terrible tragedies of everyday life might be avoided.

Not very long ago an active discussion was carried on in England to deThe Theatre, terraine whether the conditions of the modern play excluded the idea of literature or whethex they did not. We do not know whethsr any satisfactory conclusion was arrived at ; bat one of the chief combatants who declared that literature was by no means divorced from the modern play was Mr H, A. Jonep, some of whose comedies are now beiug played by the Brough-Bouci-caulb Company in Dunedin. The pieces acted by that enterprising company, indeed, comprise some of the beet-known and most successful plays of the day — those by Pinero, Jones, and the brilliant but unmentionable author of "An Ideal Husband " and " The Importance of Being Earnest." The conclusion which the visitor to the theatre must, we think, come to is that there is no literature properly so called in the modern play. We do not know why that should be. The fact that Shakespeare has run for 300 years seems Co show that the highest form of literature may be. combined with dramatic representation. The comedies of Moliere, SheridaD, Goldsmith, Bulwer Lytton, and others afford additional proof, if proof were wanted, of the same thing. It isnot easy to say precisely what the test of literature is in such a case, bat speaking roughly the literary play is better to read than to see on the stage, while the plays of the present hour are quite worthless except on the stage. " The Second Mrs Tanqueray " is perhaps the nearest approach to an exception of all recent successful plays, and it certaiDly— postibly on that account — marks the highest level ■to which Mr Picero has yet reached. In " The Case of Rebellious Susan " we have a fair average specimen of the powers of Mr H. A. Jonee. The play, however, iff very faulty, both as regards the literary element and the plot, and the total absenoe of any moral purpose in it leaves a disagreeable impression when the curtain falls. The other plays we have mentioned — judiciously described ss by the author of " Lady Windermere's Fan "—are of a wholly different order. The plot is thin and the movement slow, and they have no more claims to literature than the plays of Mr Pinero and Mr Jones. But from first to last they are rendered bright with the constant sparkle ol epigram and repartee. The epigrams start with the opening sentence, and a constant fusillade is kept up to the close. On the whole, we . need not trouble ourselves whether plays are literature or whether they are not. The chief object of a play is to while away a couple of hours pleasantly, and perhaps not without profit. The educative value of the stage is a good deal exaggerated, just as is the educative value of general eleofcions and other things of the kind. If literature is wanted we can get it in its appropriate vehicle. In plays we get representations of phases of human life, and if the grotesque and the exaggerated predominate we at least may be thankful for the enjoyment of the moment.

The Government are offering a couple of bounties in connecliou with improvements in flaxdresping machine ry. In the first place a bouus of £1750 is off«ied for a machine cr process foe dressing New Zealand h<mp (Phormium teuax) which ebail be an improvement on the macbJuej or processes now in use, and which. eh.tll after fcrisl be fcund lo materi-tlly reduces »be erst of production, imprcve the p^oduok, or ii cr. use Urn quantity of dress-til fib;e. In the tceoud aboiiLs of £250 is offered f.-r a proc. S3 ot utilis-ioc; t&o waste products c f the htmp. — The Queenfe diiaf •oob receive* £709 t Tear.