The Star. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1869.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 471, 19 November 1869, Page 2

The Star. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1869.

Jt really seems as if the Press, polili«aiiy. apeakiug, had arrived at that which, iti the case of an individual, is politely described by saying 'that his frieuda ought to t.ike care of feim. Our cor.toniporary is sadly in want of some kind friend to proven' Isiiu, if possible, from making a fool of toimself. Take his article of this morn«u?, for instance. What, does it mean ? ■What is its object? What did the writer intend to do when he commenced it ? "What result is arrived at ? We venture to say that no one ettuld answer these questions, nob even tjie writer of the article himself. The friends of the Pox-Vogel Government, by whom, we presume, is nseant the public generally, aro told that they ought to bo chary of alluding. to the over-expenditure of the Stafford Ministry "after the groan •* misrepresentations of the Coloniul * Treasurer." This is a sort of threat which, we are glad to say, there are few /people capable of making, and it is a threat which tho Press especially ought not to have made. We say the £ress especially, for reasons which will be obvious as we proceed. In making his financial statement, Mr Yogel said fehat the appropriations for -186S-9 amounted to £998,525, and that there had been a gross expenditure — " including advances, unauthor- •'.* ised expenditure, and refunds of re- " venue— of £1,430,259 4s Id, or an "excess of expenditure over appro- " priations of £433,232 10s lid." In thiß Btatement lay what tho Press calls the " gross misrepresentations of the Colonial Treasurer." Naturally, the late Government were very angry at Mr Vogel's statement. Mr Stafford assailed it first by asking for certain returns. In supporting the motion, Mr Stevens was pleased to say that the explanation of the alleged excess of over-expenditure was " perhaps one of the simplest things " which any man of business could be "asked to devote his attention to." He then went on, as his wont has always been, to read the House a dreary essay on finance, which no doubt toad the effect of sending three-fourths of the members to Bellamy's — the usual result when Mr Stevens spoke. It appears that on this occasion he was actually prompted by two members of the late Government, who were sitting fetehind him. Mr Dillon Bell, alluding to this, said : — " The hon. member "for Selwyn had very much amused *°tue- House by saying he did not ""stand up to defend the late Govern--44 taent, . while two hon. members ol

". that Government were conßtantl y "jumping up behind him and giving " him his foiej." To this Mr Steveiif remarked : — " The hon. gentleman be- " hind me did suggest to me to mala ■'* aa observation, bub I did not make " it." Mr Dillon Bell went on :— " Perhaps the hon. member did not "think it would have been quite wise " for him to have done so. At any " rate, every hon. member must have " seen the jack-in-the-box performance " that had been going on." But to return to Mr Stevens' financial essay. Mr Stevens said that the Colonial Treasurer had attempted to mislead the House — " by accident, or incapacity, or by something worse." This was clearly understood in the House to mean that the Colonial Treasurer, for mere political purposes, deliberately and knowingly made a gross mis-state-ment. Afterwards, Mr Yogel had an opportunity of referring to the matter, when Mr John Hall moved for a select committee to inquire into the alleged over-expenditure. Ifc was on this occasion that Mr Yogel gave Mr Stevens a castigation which he is not likely to forget, and which we reprinted some time ago. Ho was stopped by the Speaker in the middle of his criticism of Mr Stevens' financial pretensious because he had referred to a previous debate. And it was then that he gave a very striking instance of his readiness by remarking — "Sir, the honourable member for " Selwyn is very much indebted to yon " for iuterposiug on his behalf." As for the " gross misrepresentations " which the Press speaks of, we may simply pay that the House of Representatives was clearly of opinion there .had' been no misrepresentation at all. The House refused to grant the committee asked for by Mr John Hall. On the subject of the overexpendituro of the late Government, we would a'lvise the Press to ro.id an extract which we give elsewhere from MrVogel's speech, on the occasion we have refenvd to — when Mr Hall asked for the select committee. Perhaps the Press will be kind enough lo say how the Stafford Government and the Comptroller would have been able to explain their conduct if Mr Yogel, as ho hints, caused action to be taken in the matter. We profess ourselves utterly unable to understand what the Press means in the latter part of its article. Is our contemporary's miud so financially debauched that he caunot conceive a Government not spending all the monoy which the Huuse of Representatives may have voted, whether it is required or not ? He says : — " The Government defence " scheme has been proved to be a mere •' waste of the public money." Will any sano man undertake to say how the public money has been wasted by the Government? "Will the Press, since it has made such a reckless assertion, undertake to prove it ? How much money has the Government' already spent on defence? Does the Press know? If it doe?, the public cau only come to the conclusion that some Government officer highly placed is in too close communication with our contemporary. How does the ' Press know that •' the defence expenditure " of the present Ministry vastly exceeds their origiual estimate" of £150,000? He says this is "undeniable." Well, we deny it without any hesitation whatever, and we challenge the Press to the proof.