The Star. SATURDAY, APRIL 16, 1870.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 594, 16 April 1870, Page 2

The Star. SATURDAY, APRIL 16, 1870.

♦ We are really afc a loss to know how we can satisfactorily explain what turns oufc to have been our unfortunate suggestion of a comparison between Mr Rolleston and Mr Wynn Williams. In our Thursday's issue we stated thafc we had no intention of saying Mr Rolleston could be fairly compared with the gentleman who contrived to stick fco fche office of Provincial Solicitor through so many changes. This explanation, we find, is quite satisfactory to Mr Rolleston's friends. The admirers of Mr Wynn Williams, however, are not satisfied. They are of opinion thafc Mr Rolleston's friends had no cause to be angry at the comparison, which they assert was rather complimentary to Mr Rolleston, and that a slight has been put upon Mr Wynn Williams. We cannot pretend fco settle so nice a point, and must therefore leave those interested to dispose of ifc as they think best. We do hope, however, that there will be no more squabbling about the respective merits of the Superintends at and Provincial Solicitor. Both are great men in their way. In bi3 speech afc the Canterbury

Music Hall on Thursday nighty Mr Eiolleston adverted to the points which we have drawn attention to in former articles. He professed, in the first place, to give an explanation of his views on Provincial institutions, and about his conduct in voting for Mr Stevens' "sweep away " resolutions. We have read Mr Eolleston's speech carefully where ifc relates to this point, and we feel bound to say thafc we think ifc very unsatisfactory indeed. Mr Rolleston knows as well as any one, afc all events he ought to know, that he has been the reverse of candid on tbis point. He wishes the public to believe thafc he did nofc vote for " sweeping away " Provincial institutionaybut he is careful nofc to say distinctly that he didn't, and he altogether avoids giving a direct answer to the question of what his present viewß really are. We are sorry to be compelled to say thafc we are still in great doubt as to Mr Eolleston's intentions with regard fco Provincial institutions. Why does he not! say afc once, candidly and without those j reservations which cloud nearly all his j remarks, whether he will do his best to uphold Provincial institutions, or do his utmost, as we think he did last session, fco compass their destruction ? What about the nominated Superintendent question ? Does Mr Rolleston still believe that ifc would be better to have the Superintendent nominated by the Governor, instead of being elected, as now, by the people ? That is another subject which he avoided, but which fche electors ought fco have a clear answer upon. They must remember fchafc if they elect Mr Rolleston, he will have four years in which to work, if so disposed, with those who wish to concentrate all power in the G-eneral Government — as he has hitherto done. Ifc is a notorious fact that Mr Rolleston's tendencies have hitherto been invariably in the direction of taking away power from fche people. " The Canterbury ■ Rivers Act " is a prominent case in poinfc. That Act, as we long ago pointed out, actually denies the right of those who pay taxes fco say who shall spend them. Mr Rolleston attempted to give some explanation about this Act on Thursday evening, but , he did nofc explain how ifc came about thafc fche Act centred ali power in the Superintendent, and deprived the people of their right to say who should spend fche money which it compels them to pay. If an Act were passed giving the Superintendent power to nominate — a word which Mr Rolleston seems to like very much— the members of the City Council, ifc would be exactly equivalent to " The Canterbury Rivers Act," which, notwithstanding what Mr Rolleston has said, is about as bad an Act as ever was passed by the General Assembly, and he took charge of it there. Mr Rolleston's explanation about true economy is— well ifc is just what; one might expecfc from Mr Rolleston. True economy, says tbe Superintendent of Canterbury, consists in keeping your accounts all right, in nofc mixing up your money. In fact, true economy, according to Mr Rolleston, is simply a correct; system of book-keeping. We musfc decline to offer any commentary on such contemptible stuff as this. The public are quite able to put the true value on such explanations. Mr Rolleston appears to have got into a fog about the Bank balance. No one, that we are aware of, has said it ought to have been broadcast over the province/ What has been said is, thafc it ought to have been spent on reproductive works and not hoarded. We have said ; thafc more than once, and we beg to repeat ifc. If Mr Rolleston and his Government had been as active as they ought to have been, the Northern railway would have been commenced. But they never wished fco make ifc, and they never would have made it, if they ..had not been forced. True economy ! Was it. true ecohomy to appoint a steward of educational reserves at a salary of £200 a year, when the estimated income from these reserves was only .£IOO a year ?-• Tbat is a subject on which some elector might extract interesting information from Mr Rolleston. Was a steward of educational reserves wanted afc all ? If so, might not the work have been done in the Chief Surveyor's oflice ? The land sales are so. very large now-a-days thafc this department musfc have too much to do, we suppose. What economical reforms has Mr Rolleston effected

during his term of office? What has he done at all ? He has kept some money in the Bank— to the Bank's advantage only — that the people have to thank another man for getting. That is all that Mr Rolleston has done.