The Star. MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1870.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 595, 19 April 1870, Page 2

The Star. MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1870.

We have the very best authority — that of the Mayor of Christchurch — for sayiog that some of Mr Rolleston's supporters who were present at Mr Moorhouse's meeting on Saturday night disgraced themselves by their unseemly conduct. Even without the Mayor's emphatic declaration to this effect, the fact was patent to all who attended that meeting. Every atom of disturbance was plainly traceable to supporters of Mr Rolleston, who even went so far as to pelt those on the platform— reporters } chairman, Mr Moorhouso, and others — with small pebbles. There can be no doubt about it, and it ought to be placed on record, that those who claim to represent the respectability of the province were guilty of such very unusual and disgrace ful conduct. There is another reason for drawing attention to the disturbance on Saturday night. Mr .Rolleston held ameetiug in the Canterbury Music Hall on the evening of Thursday last, and those competent to form an estimate say that fully one-third of the persons present were known supporters of Mr Moorhouse. ' Did they interrupt the proceedings? Certainly not. They listened, as the Mayor said on Saturday night, patiently to Mr Eolleston. For the sake of every one concerned in this election ; for the honour of the province ; for the love of that fair play which we Britons boast so much about, we hope there" will be no more repetition of the conduct displayed by some of Mr Rollestou's supporters on Saturday ni»ht. Let every one, be he who ho may, have a fair hearing — let us abide by the time-honoured motto of a fair field for every one. .In concluding ■what we hope will be the only remarks we shall have to make during the ejection contest on this poinfc, we think it right to say that we believe Mr EolUston himself would be the very first to repudiate the conduct of which wo complain. And • now for other matters. "We notice that Mr Rolleston's friends have discovered a difference between the last aoatcst for the Superintendency and that now going on. They say that both candidates are well-known to the electors. This is quite true, and itj is. equally true that Mr Kol.Juston is supported by substantially the same party that supported Mr Lance, who, it is now averred, lost

the election chiefly because he was an untried man. That is simple nonsense. Mr Lance lost the election because the people did not believe in the party who put him forward, and because they did believe in Mr Moorhouse's ability to serve them. Mr Rollestou, during the time he has been in office, has allied himself chiefly with what it is no injustice to call the Runip of the FitzGrerald party. They have enjoyed his confidence to the virtual exclusion ot all others ; they have endeavoured, through him, to rule the province according to their own narrow notions ; and they have re ceived exclusively any little bit of patronage it has been in Mr Eolleston's power to confer. These are facts, as all who take the trouble to ! think will at once admit. The electors should, therefore, bear in mind that it is the Rump of the FilzGerald party which puts Mr Rolleston forward. MrSolleston, say his supporters, is no novice ; he has taken an active and distinguished part in public affairs for the last sis or seven years. "We admit the years, and we don't dispute the activity, but we very decidedly demur to the " distinguished." What portion of his public career is "distinguished"? What has he done ? He was " head of the " Provincial Government in 1864 " and 1865," we are told, and " his " talents for administration no lessthan "his unwearied industry and zeal for " the public service gained him the " highest reputation." Really, this is news to the public. Most people were of opinion that Mr John Hall wa3 head of the Provincial Government in 1864 and 1865. If he wasn't, he was at least its life and soul — the " stang of the trump," as North Britons sometimes say. Then, as now, Mr Rolleston " distinguished " himself by obstructing, as far as he could, all public progress. His talents for administration chiefly displayed themselves in close attention to duties that any ordinary clerk could have performed just as well, and his zeal for the public service was exhibited in | that cheese-paring parsimony which he chooses to call economy. We have no wish to make these remarks. As a matter of choice, we would much rather not. But when we see ridiculous pretensions put forward, — pretensions which are even worse than ridiculous — we consider it our duty to expose them. It is further stated, on behalf of Mr Rolleston, that he " enlarged his political expe- " perience by holding for nearly three " years one of the most important " posts below the Cabinet, in the Civil " Service of the colony." This refers to Mr Rolleston's career as Undersecretary for Native affairs. We are not aware that Mr Rolleston did anything remarkable during that period beyond holding the office. Perhaps Mr Stafford, if he were asked — and he is in Canterbury now, we believe — could say something about it. It is said that the estimation in which Mr Rolleston was held by the " people of Canterbury " must be measured by his being invited, "at a time when the " Province was in great difficulties," to take the place of Superintendent. Now, this is again simple nonsense. In the first place, the " people " of Canterbury had nothing whatever to do with the matter. Their opiuion was never asked. Mr Rolleston was nominated by a few gentlemen who take an active interest in public affairs, at a time when the office was going a-begging. Mr Rolleston, we know, denies this. He is very indignant at the bare idea that he readily took an office which was going a-begging. But that is the simple truth, however much it may annoy him and his immediate friends to hear it. Mr Rolleston should not forget that there are men who know all the circumstances of the caso. Mr Rolleston, it is said, doesn't come forward from motives of personal ambition. What, then, are his motives ? Why, he comes forward as a public servant to ask the public whether they endorse his actions during the time he has been in office, whether they have confidence in him. Really this is most admirable fooling. Mr Rolleston doesn't want to be Superintendent— not at all — he only wants a certificate of character from the public! The public who are thus appealed to so pathetically will no doubt give Mr

Rolleston a good character ; they will say he has been a faithful public servant, and all the rest of it. But when they are asked to say whether he has done his work well, they will naturally ask— what work ? The ouly answer the public have as yet managed to get to this question is, that Mr Rollealon has been economical. And that, translated into ordinary ideas, means that he has kept a lob of money locked up in the bank which ought to have been spent in reproductive public works. What else has he done? Nothing, absolutely nothing. We forgot ; be created the office of Steward of Educational Keserves.