South Canterbury Times. WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 1882.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2912, 26 July 1882, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 1882.

A very practical and important question came up for discussion in the House on Monday night. It having been proposed that the House go into Committee of Supply, it was moved as an amendment that the ten per cent, reduction in Government salaries, which had been restored in the case of Civil Servants, be likewise restored in the case of the platelayers and others employed on the railways. This gave rise to a most animated discussion ; and the question would have been still more fully discussed on its merits had not the Government chosen to treat the amendment as a vote of want of confidence, and shown a great unwillingness to debate it fairly. Some members were quite prepared to accept the challenge, but it was apparent from the tone of the speakers generally that the amendment was not brought forward or supported in a party spirit; and the feeling of the House was against treating it as a no confidence motion. The fact is, the importance of the subject transcended the limits of parliamentary usage and rendered it superior to all party consideration. It is a matter for congratulation that the House appeared, on this occasion, to fully appreciate tine claims of this subject. The Treas urer indeed stuck pertinaciously to his no-confidence theory, and flatly refused to hear one word of discussion of the question on its merits. But Government supporters were only half with him. They could not help owning the justice and importance of the plea; and, in spite of themselves, most of them did argue the question, on its merits, though, to keep up appearances they found it necessary to put in, in an apologetic sort of way, an expression of opinion to the effect that “really now, you know, you should’nt,” and to rebuke the Opposition. These things, however, are of little moment. Mr Smith the mover of the amendment, was in earnest ; m bringing under the notice of the House a case of flagrant injustice to a most useful and hardworking body of Government employes, and most of the speakers following him seemed to have caught the infection of his earnestness. If, in carrying on the discussion, the mover and his followers exceeded the limits of Parliamentary usage, it is certain the country at large will heartily forgive them, when the goodness of their object is considered. At the time the state of the colony called for a reduction of the pay of Government employes the wisdom and justice of the Ministry were warmly questioned, in subjecting “ all hands ” to uniform reduction. That was allowed to pass, however; it being believed (and faiirly we admit) that they had acted wfth an earnest desire to place the finances of the colony on a proper footing. When, however, the- returning hide of prosperity placed the Government in a position to restore the pay of its servants to former rates, it acted in a manner which could not fail to excite discontent in the minds of those principally affected, and to c all forth the unanimous censure of ithe public. For it began the work of restoration at the wrong end. It restored the former salaries of its cl erks and officials, while it left as low as ever the wages of the hard-working men who fill the humbler but no less useful posts in the service. No wonder that such gross injustice should have called forth the debate of Monday night; no wonder that in their eagerness to re- ! dress so serious a grievance, the House should have tranegreatsod usage and insisted on at least ventilating the subject. If the amendment was not carried (and it was not, for the original motion was passed), the debate warned the Government of the; feeling of the Hov—., and ensured a measure of jus ; « to the persons to whom it

had reference. It placed the restoration of their pay beyond a doubt. For the Government know by this time that the matter, though not then brought forward as a no-confidence motion, would instantly be made the subject of one, in the event of Government failing to do justice to the men concerned. Our own opinion is that the platelayers on our railways have been scurvily treated in this matter. To reduce the wages of comparatively skilled (and necessarily very trustworthy) men to six shillings a day, is manifestly unjust. It must be remembered that the majority of these men have families, and that their need of home comfort is enhanced, [in the southern parts of the country, by the inclemency of the weather. Yet the Government permit them to work at this miserable rate of wage without affording them shelter, while in Victoria they receive higher pay and are supplied with house accommodation. This is surely unjust. And when the time comes for restoring the old rate they alone are left out in the cold. It looks as if the Government had been too much guided by the condition of the labor market, and had shirked a great moral responsibility. The contention of some members, that the men should have houses provided for them is a very just one, which we should like to see carried into effect. The poor man’s rights are in constant danger of being overlooked by (to quote Mr Fish) “ a broadcloth ministry.” and it is well that they should have the fact brought home to them that the House and the country are unanimous and earnest in their desire to dojustice to those who cannot plead their own cause.