The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning. Thursday, June 20, 1889. WITHDRAWN.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 314, 20 June 1889, Page 2

The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning.

Thursday, June 20, 1889. WITHDRAWN.

Be just and fear not; Let all the ends thou alm’st at be thy country’s, Thy God’s, and truth’s.

Mr Bennett acted gracefully in withdrawing his motion for calling for tenders for the construction of the remaining portion of the breakwater pier. He stated that he still held firmly to hi? previously expressed opinion that the ratepayers would benefit by the wdrk being let by contract, but he recognised that, with the petition presented, he would not get a majority in favor of his motion. He might well have ended there, or, with the Chairman's permission, might have done what he failed to do, give arguments in favor of his own side. But he went a great deal further, and accused those who had got up the petition of having button-holed everyone in the town for signatures. It is not necessary here to give a contradiction to that statement, but we may say we think Mr Bennett has been misinformed. Further, the assertion made by Mr Bennett that none of those mem> bars who are in favor of contracting had asked the support of a single person, rather weakens than strengthens the position. By not asking for " support,” we assume he means that no one was consulted. If that assumption be correct, we would ask would it not be well that members should consult the ratepayers in matters of this kind ? It may be pointed out here, too, that every member of the Board who is against any alteration of the present system has passed the test of election by ratepayers. Those who would probably have voted, or rather sym* pathised with Mr Bennett, we place— The mover and Messrs Shelton, Clark, Matthewson and Murphy ; against— The Chairman and Messrs Townley, Sievwright, and Chambers. Of tne former not one has submitted to the ordeal of a contest for membership on the Board. Messrs Bennett and Shelton, acknowledged as good men for the position, were not opposed, but it was not then known that they would seek to change the whole method of working. Of course it is not to be inferred from this they are any the less competent to attend to the ratepayers’ interests, but taken with Mr Bennett’s assertion, it considerably weakens their position. Mr Clark, too, might well have left unsaid those words which conveyed the meaning that the work is not being done properly—that there is something in connection with it which there ought not to be—unless he were prepared to give some proof. If things are not proceeding properly, he is equally responsible with the other members, and apart from the question at issue, he either said too little or too much—enough to create an impression that things are not as they should be, but not sufficient to substantiate what he had said. Mr Matthewson made a point that the specifications precluded any contractor from competing and this raises the question, who is responsible for the specifications prepared ? The Board had complete control of them, and was in no way bound to call for tenders on the specifications then before them.

Dismissing these points, we think Mr Bennett’s good sense in withdrawing the motion will commend itself to every ratepayer, whether that ratepayer is for or against the motion, and it proves that the voice of the majority of the ratepayers will never go unheard when they convey their wishes in proper form. Some members still persist in arguing the question as though it were simply contracts v. day labor, but it is not merely a question of principle. There is not a member of the Board who would say that day labor is always preferable to contracting, but they do urge with the best of reason that the altered circumstances make it very undesirable anything of the kind should he attempted now. We ourselves perfectly agree with Mr Matthewson that the contract system should have been Initiated in the first place, but where we differ from him is in allowing for the great change of circumstances. Mr Clark even, although he claims to be a strong advocate of the contract system at this stage of the work, candidly admits that a narrow majority should not take on itself to make so radical a change. But his meaning is obscure, or his reasoning unjust, when he says that there is a compact opposition against contracting, and 11 it would be a fight all through.” Surely Mr Clark doss not think that if the resolution were carried, those who opposed It would continue a sort of guerilla warfare against the decision? If the Board's record's are scrutinised, it will perhaps be found that the interests of the ratepayers have been abused by a lot of obstruction, but the ratepayers are now sufficiently alive to their own interests, to quickly suppress anything of the kind in the future, And more than this. Mr Clark knows, or should know, very well, nothing of the kind could bq expected from the “compact minority." Though they might differ in opinion from Mr Clark, they would not be guilty of creating confusion and causing obstruction just because the majority decided against them. We do not think Mr Clark meant exactly what he said, that “ it would be a fight all through,” but if he did not mean it he should not say it, for the imputation is without foundation.

The point raised by Mr Shelton, as to whether there is proper supervision of the bottom portion of the work, ought not to be lost sight of in the future.

BOULANGER'S LATEST. Ex-General Boulanger is nothing if 1 not sensational. This is an advertising age, and Boulanger has a keen perception of the value of publicity. He courted the favor of the rank and file of the French army, and succeeded so well that the Government found it necessary to deprive him of his rank. He so far gained popularity with the masses that it appeared necessary, for the safety of France, that he should be put out of the way. Boulanger was warned of the danger and fled. He is now self-exiled, to avert a prosecution, the policy of which is questioned by men of sound judgment. He has been happy in his misfortunes. More by good luck than any foresight on his own part, his enemies do that for him which, if left to his own resources, he would find somewhat difficult, viz., to keep himself always before the public. Boulanger expects to return to France in triumph after the next elections, which take place about November next, He cannot afford to allow his name to die out in the meantime, and he makes another bid for French votes by appealing to their patriotic feelings. The outcome is the revelation in connection with what is known as the Schnaebell incident. Schnaebell was, it will be remembered, a frontier officer of the French Government, and was said to be engaged in treasonable practice against Germany. He was decoyed across the frontier by German officials, and was arrested on German territory about the latter end of April, 1887. This incident seemed for a short time likely to have the effect of straining the very slender relations between the two countries. Some even went so far as to allege that it was a direct act of provocation on the part of Germany, but eventually Bismarck's good sense found a satisfactory solution of the difficulty in the unconditional release of M. Schnaebell, on the ground that having'tetn invited across the frontier he was entitled to safe conduct whilst he was responding to that invitation. The French were complimented by the English Press on the comparative coolness which they had preserved throughout the expitement that the incident had created, Boulanger now comes forward and says that, pending Schnaebell’s release, he secretly equipped a reserve force. Of course Boulanger's aim is to show that he was anxious to uphold the honor of France, and that under his regime France was quite competent to overpower her old enemy. To this end it becomes necessary to depreciate anything his successor may have don?, and therefore we have the statement that General Ferron had in effect reduced the fighting power of France. This, in itself, would be a crime in the eyes of the French masses, who still look forward to the war of revanche.

There is, however, another and more significant point in Boulanger's declaration, because it shows on what a slender thread the peace of Europe depends The secret equipment of the reserve must have been for some ulterior purpose, and it is therefore the policy of the French Government to deny that it ever took place and to brand Boulanger’s statement as an impudent invention. But there must be something of truth in it, and it only confirms Bismarck’s good sense in dreading Boulanger's power for evil. We know that three months before the incident a war scare was caused by the massing of troops in the vicinity of the frontier. Both countries had been increasing their armaments to an extent that made it almost insupportable, It is unreasonable to suppose then that Boulanger, had he seen the least desire on the part of the populace to magnify the Schnaebell incident into an international difficulty, would have siezed the opportunity of taking the first step towards attaining that position which he is said to be aiming at—the Dictatorship of France. If it is so, then we must anticipate strange events should the forthcoming elections turn out as he wishes. It only makes all the more evident what sensible people have thought all along; that there is more of the peace disturber than the patriot about Boulanger.