The Star. MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 1917. EDITORIAL NOTES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12084, 13 August 1917, Page 4

The Star. MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 1917. EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE MAYOR. There have been occasions in the past when we havo folt compelled to dissent from the views and course of action of tho Mayor of Christchurch, and probably similar occasions will again make it necessary for us to view things in another perspective from that of Mr Holland. But we have always recognised tho good work which he has idone for the city, and how devotedly ha has performed the difficult and multitudinous duties and tasks which havo fallen to his lot during his tenure of offioe, but more particularly during the last three years. The war has been responsible for placing on the shcMlders of the mayors of tho cities and towns burdens incomparably heavier than those which fell to the loti of tho chief magistrates' under peace eonditions. While we can say without hesitation that all have worked well for the great/ Cause 7 we have no qualms in declaring that - among the band of - municipal workers Mr Holland occupies no inconspicuous place; indeed, we will go further and say that it is questionable .wiether anymayorof a city has been jHOiHaj. asaictuoiis. in his attention to 'duty, or-/who : .has responded with / greater alacrity "to the calls made upon

him. Since his assumption of the mayoral chair, Mr Holland has devoted practically the -whole 0 f his time tio

the affairs of the city, and it is unnecessary to say that this means no inconsiderable sacrifice on the- part of a man in business like the present Mayor of Christehurch. We. therefore regret to see that an effort is lining made to disparage Mr Holland in connection with the proposed presentation to Sir James Allen, especially because of his refusal to reply to anonymous letters. "When an inquisitorial correspondent asks impertinent questions about a matter which, in fact, is no concern of his, since he has not been asked tn contribute, and is too craven spirited to sign his name, we think tho Mayor took up a perfectly correct position when he refused to reply. "We believe Lho Mayor has made it. his invariable rule since he has occupied the chair to decline to answer anonymous correspondent?!. "We are firmly convinced that the rule is a. good one, and it is one which is followed by practically all men in public positions. The committee set up to make arrangements regarding the presentation to Kir James Allen has not yet made its report, and it would have been entirely wrong had the Mayor, as chairman of that vommnjtee, as itwere, behind the backs of Iris colleagues and revealed the business of the commitee. The effort to disparage the Mayor on account of his determination to act honourably is an entirely unworthy and contemptible one, and wo feel sure it will meet with the disapproval of every right-thinking citizen. In his firm refusal to bo brow-beaten in connection with this matter, the Mayor has shown a spirit and dignity which we are convinced will meet with the hearty approval of tho citizens of Christchurch.

A WARNING. In Saturday's issue wo published a letter warning housewives and others against signing contracts to purchase articles which are being assiduously canvassed, and which are being disposed of under this system at prices much beyond their actual value. The trick or securing signatures to documents, which on the lace of them look innocent enough, but which in reality bind the signators hand and foot, is an old one, and we can remember numerous instances in this province where such agreements have been the subject of much litigation and heart-burning. Usually the glib lady or gentleman who undertakes the canvassing tells only part of the truth, and taking advantage of any want of business knowledge on the. part of the persons canvassed, •secures signatures. These canvassed are usually told that the signing of the document is merely a matter of form, and believing this to be quite correct a number of people have been rendered liable for sums of which they had no conception when they appended their signatures to the "mere form." Of course, it is part and parcel of the duty of the vendor of any such article which is being hawked round the country to assert that it is being sold much below its value, th-it its usefulness or utility is beyond comparison the greatest ever placed on the market. Indeed, the prospective buyer is beguiled into the belief that he or she is particularly fortunate in being afforded an opportunity of secur- r , ing such an article, which the canvasser, usually states is being sold at less than' cost price. It has not infrequently happened that when the article has" been put to the test its worth has been ■ found to be negligible, that it did not' possess the attributes which were claimed for it by the prolix and glibtongued canvasser, and that its intrinsic value, if it had any, was contempt--ibly small. In these times when money is less plentiful than in pre-war times, or rather when the purchasing power of inuney has been redact.d by the appreciation of the purchasing price of the ncceisr.nes of life, die people of the country, men, women and children should be doubly careful how they spend tlu'ir money, and confine their purchases to absolute necessities. If there ever was a time when the principles of economy should be practised it is the present. We deem the time an opportune one to warn the public against becoming responsible for payments which are unnecessary, and they will be well advised if they hold their hands when they are asked to attach their signatures- to any papers, innocent looking or otherwise, unless they are fully cognisant of the contents, and are prepared to fulfil the obligations which are implied therein.

MR HENDERSON. In the light of the revelations of the last fortnight Mr Arthur Henderson's resignation was generally expected, although there were those who hoped that a satisfactory explanantion would bo forthcoming to justify some of his. recent actions in coquetting with the pacifist .section of the Socialist Party. The correspondence between the .cxmembcr of the "War Cabinet, published to-day, however, puts Mr Henderson in a very unenviable position, and shows that at the supreme moment of a political career which had accomplished much and which gave promise of great usefulness in the future, he stumbled badly by the way, and it is difficult to imagine that under any set of conditions his political fortunes can be rehabilitated. It is impossible to conceive how a man who rose to such positions of responsibility by sheer force of character, indomitable perseverance and plain common-senso could have so far forgotten himself, the cause which ho represented, and tho views held by the other members of the Cabinet, as to play the part ho did during tho last few weeks; but it is clear that his judgment has been seriously at fault, and under tho circumstances it was unthinkable that Mr Lloyd George should have , overlooked his errors of .judgment. Tho resignation Is not, we take it, a case of a Minister voluntarily retiring from the Government: tho resignation was handed in at the demand of the Prime Minister. We feel sure that the Empire will applaud the attitude taken up by the Frirno Minister in connection with this matter, and his words will carry conviction to all unbiassed minds. In the course of his letter to the ex-Minister Mr Lloyd George said:—

There are certain facts with which ' the public should be acquainted in orde: to form a correct appreciation of the eventr that led to this regrettable conclusion. You; colleagues were completely taken by surprise by tha attituia you adonted at the Labour

Conference. I was under the impression that you moant to uso vour influence against the conferonca delegates meeting enomy representatives at tha Stockholm Conference, and this was also the impression of your Cabinet colleagues, and of your Labour colleagues. Surely this was a conclusion on which you should have informed Cabinet before entering the Labour Conference, ns you wore not a member of the Labour Party only, but a. member of Cabinet responsible for the conduct of the war. Nevertheless you did rot deem it necessary to inform the conference of the views of your colleagues, and the delegates accordingly were justified in assuming that the advice you gave wa.s not inconsistent with their cpinions.

After dealing at some length with communications received from Russia m connection with the proposed Stockholm Conference, Mr Lloyd George concluded in these scathing terms, terms which we feel sure have seldom been applied by a Prime Minister to a colleague, but under the circumstances we feel that tho public will be in agreement with the Premier's remarks:—

I immediately sent this communication to you with a request that you should communicate it to tho Labour Conference, lou omitted to do so, though in the course en vour speech you made very casual reference to some modifications of tho attitude of the rtussian Government. In these circumstances vour action does not eppear to have been fair either to the Government or to the delegates von were addressing. You latt them in ignorance- of a vital tact which must necessarily have affected their judgment.