OUR SYDNEY LETTER.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 242, 3 January 1889, Page 3

OUR SYDNEY LETTER.

[fBOM OUB OWN CORRESPONDENT.] Sydney, Dec. 12.

Perhaps the most exciting event of the week next to the story of the unfortunate boy who was disembowelled by a shark while bathing, was ihe balloon ascent, or rather descent, made by Mr J. T. Williams, an ingenious and daring Sydney watchmaker, who for many years has been employing his intellect in perfecting a parachute. In the language of the playbills, he ascended with a balloon without a car “ straight into the clouds,” then “ jumped into space,” trusting entirely to his parachute. He ascended from Ashfield, rapidly gained a great height, becoming a mere speck in the air. Then a second speck was seen to part company from the first, and commence a slow descent. As it neared the earth, the umbrella-like form of the parachute, with the plucky aeronaut clinging to it, became more distinctly defined. The parachute “ rolled ’’ and wobbled very much as it descended, giving rise to many apprehensions. Mr Williams, however, descended safely near Homebush, three miles away, and when he had returned to the ground from which he started, he explained that the eccentric movements of bis frail support, which only weighs about 201bs, were caused by his own manipulation in endeavoring to steer it through the air. The police were present, and took the names and addresses of all concerned, declaring that if any mishap occurred they would hold the promoters criminally responsible. Some eight or ten thousand persons witnessed the feat. Only about one thousand, however, paid for admission, the remainder preferring the cheaper gratification of an “ outside ticket,” so that the amount realised was not very great. Perhaps this is not to be regretted, as the affair was bossed by the inevitable “ syndicate,” who make no secret of their intention to “ work ” lheir man for all he is worth. As far as Williams is concerned, it would seem very hard lines to deny him the opportunity of demonstrating the successful result of his researches, albeit it is one that was made abundantly clear many years ago, and has been recently revived by “ Prcfessor ” Baldwin, in London. It is lair, however, to state that Williams' performance is considered to have entirely eclipsed Baldwin’s, and taken together with the fact that he had never been in a balloon before, establishes his reputation as a man of rare coolness and nerve. It cannot, however, be forgotten that similar displays have ended before new in revolting and fatal accidents and that ihe chance of such an occurrence has a great deal to do with ths interest that draws the spectators. In Williams’ case this morbid expectation was heightened by the announcement that he would make the descent “ hanging by his hands” from the parachute—a " piling on of the agony,” which cannot claim any justification from the seini-scientifio nature of the feat. Whether it is allowable to stimulate a feeling of this kind for the purpose of coining it into money, is a question which will sooner or later have to be taken into serious consideration.

Our new railway commissioners, appointed in order that they might be absolutely free from political control, have been the subject of a virulent attack from a section of the House. They appointed two independent inspectors, going to England for one and to America for the other. No one who understands how compactly the existing officials are banded together will feel any surprise at this step. But it was fiercely resented by the paid representative of the railway officials’ Union, and by the loud voiced demagogues who make themselves the mouthpieces of the most ignorant prejudices of the labor party. “If Mr Eddy asserted that he could not get men in New South Wales," loudly vociferated Ninian Melville, “ he was a crimson liar.” And the “ orator save the mark—repeated this choice flower of rhetoric several times. The incident goes to show that if the railways are really to be freed from the political control of an interested class, the nettle will have to be grasped with a verj' firm hand indeed. To begin to quarrel with the a ministration of the commissioners before they are fairly settled in their seate is like the conduct of a child who pulls up his newly-planted seeds in order to see if they are growing. After two inconclusive trials Mrs Collins, the Central figure in what is known as the Botany poisoning case, has been found guilty <f the murder of her second husband. The theory of the prosecution is that she also murdered her fiist husband and that both were done to death by that most horrible and painful process of slow arsenical poisoning The crime is one of the most atrocious on record, and there can be no doubt that it deserves the most condign punishment known to the law. The fact that two juries had previously disagreed will, however, exercise a disturbing influence when the sentence comes to be considered by the Cabinet, albeit the Chief Justice, who tried the case, said that he could not hold cut the slightest hope of mercy-. On Monday the Premier figured as a debtor in the Supreme Court, being sued by Abraham Friedman for £1512, alleged to be due on certain promissory notes. Mr Want, plaintiff's counsel, on accepting a deed of assignment which was put in, said he was quite prepared to accept a verdict for the defendant. One wonders, under these circum-

stances, why the case was brought into Court at all.

Dr Jefferis, the clever and eloquent minister of the Pitt Street Congregational Church, who is deservedly regarded as the “ bishop ” of his denomination, has been lecturing on “ The Sorrows of Wealth” and ‘‘The Pleasures of Poverty.” Such subjects and such titles would be eminently appropriate in the mouth of some “Simon Stylites” or mendicant friar. Whether we accepted the teaching or

not, we should not in such a case be troubled by any doubts as to the sincerity of the speaker. But from a jolly comfortable clergyman, whose income runs into four figures, it sounds rather anomalous and has provoked some comment in the press. One journal hints that the rev gentleman should exemplify his teaching by giving up half his income and living on the stipend which was paid to him before he attained his present position. To this the worthy doctor would probably reply that some are called to wealth, some to poverty, and some to the happy medium, and

that they must, as a matter of duty, accept their calling, whether it bring with it pleasure or sorrow. But the rejoinder would not cover the ground, undeniably true though it may be. Does anyone in his senses believe that a true and good man is, or ought to be, sorrowful because he is prosperous, and pleased when he falls into monetary difficulties? I venture to surmise that the headlines, or titles of the lectures, striking though they are, did not c onvey the leeson they were intended to teach, The Miseries of Covetousness” or “ The Wretchedness of Unsatisfied Ambition ’’ and “ The Pleasures of Contentment ” would, I think, have been nearer the mark. An important case was decided in the Bankruptcy Court yesterday, which appears to hit a very common “ blot ” in commercial life. W. J. Stephenson was a bootmaker who had become insolvent. He had bad large dealings with, and considerable monetary assistance from the well-known firm of John Hunter and Co., to whom eventually he sold his business. The general result of these transactions was stated by the official assignee to be that although Stephenson owed £l3OO to other persons, Hunter alone was paid, He, moreover, was paid in full, and the other creditors got nothing. Under these circumstances the assignee sued Hunter for the

refund of certain payments to him under promissory notes, on the ground that they were fraudulently preferential. For the defence it was urged that Hunter did not know that Stephenson was in dificulties and that the payments were bona fide. The Commissioner thought this rather hard to believe and made an order for the repayment of £750 within 21 days, which I suppose will be applied to the payment of the other creditors. The land nationalisation movement is beginning to attract considerable attention. A league has been formed in Sydney, of which Mr P. Meggy is the secretary, and temperate, but forcibly written letters on the subject occupy prominent positions in the public press. Mr Farrell, a clever writer, and editor of the Land Nationaliser, published hitherto at Lithgow, is also, I believe, about to remove his paper to Sydney, where its effectiveness in spreading the new truths is likely to be much, increased. The justice of the main contentions of the. league appear to me to be unquestionable, and only require to be thoroughly known and dispassionately considered to commend general acceptance. That it in nuiciditl polls/ to allow iudiyiduals

to monopolise the land on which their fellow creatures must live to the hindrance of indivividual and national prosperity is self-evident. Something in the form of private property in land is indispensible, otherwise the resources of this fountain of all wealth cannot be utilised. But there is a point at which it ceases to be beneficial and that point is defined, in my opinion, by the simple plain principles which rule other things. So far as it serves its proper purpose of furthering the development of national resources private ownership is good. So far as it enables any man to extort from others the lion’s share of tbe produce of their labor, or to lock up vast tracts of the public estate from those who would turn them to profitable account, it is an unmitigated evil. It seems quite possible by a judicious adjustment of taxation on unimproved land values, to encourage to the utmost the benefits derived from private ownership, and to minimise the evils under which the community at present labors. But before the new ideas can take shape in practical form there will have to be a great upheaval of tbe indurated crust of conventional ideas, which form such a stronghold for the existing state of things. In this connection, I may remark, it is, in my opinion, to be regretted that tbe Land Nationalists should have fallen out with the Protectionists. Both parties have a common aim in their endeavor to convince the public that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in current philosophy.