IS THE PARTY RESPONSIBLE?

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 509, 20 September 1890, Page 2

IS THE PARTY RESPONSIBLE?

The proceedings at the meeting o creditors in the bankrupt estate of M. J

Gannon must cause a pang of pain tdf all electors who are of a reflecting turn of mind,

It is not merely rank nonsense that party spirit should be introduced into a matter of the kind, not merely a subject in which the reporter should be given the opportunity of gaily introducing his parentheti cal “laughter”; but there is a high principle involved which should be held sacred from such violation. Mr Gannon’s creditors are but a small section of the community, and if they choose to say they will take what may not mean much, when at best they would have the poorest chance of getting a fraction more, that is their own private business, and in any facility that they may give for the perpetuating of the credit —or we should, say “discredit” —system, they are likely themselves to be among the worst sufferers. If they do not choose to stand firm and maintain the commercial integrity of the community in cases where there may be reason to believe that the Bankruptcy Act has been availed of for purposes for which it was never intended, others can hardly complain if the creditors refuse to to take on themselves what is not always .a light_burden. j 1 r_, But we most strongly protest against the'introduction of party feeling into matters of this kind.. In politics there are principles to. ba3upheid, principles upon which the wisest of men will differ; — it is well that there should be such differences, and that able exponents on either side should point out the weak and the strong points, before asking for the decision of those who can judge of the merit.of an argument, but, as individuals, have not always the time to go deeply into abstruse questions. In a case, however, such as that of a man’s bankruptcy, there is but one principle to guide those concerned : if the bankruptcy is the result of misfortune, such as sickness, or the non-realisation of expectations that might be made by any ordinarily prudent person, the creditors must be content to make some sacrifice and-not deal harshly with the man ; if, on the other hand, it can be shown that the bankrupt has been wilfully neglectful of the interests of the creditors, the latter are quite justified in attempting to punish , him. We offer no opinion as to Which is the proper course in the present case, but we would emphatically state that if Mr Maude has taken a .correct view of the thing, and as the representative of one party denounces another party, then the sense of the phrase “ hounding down ” is completely lost, and the party to which it is attributed has done its part honorably in this matter.'' Things have come to < bad state if, because the party bogey is raised, it is deemed desirable to relieve politicians'from the ordinary rules that should govern a democratic community. We see no reason why special facilities should be accorded to any bankrupt just because he happens to have a desire to get into Parliament. If he fails to pay his debts he should be judged accordingly, and not have any Party, of which he may have been a member, dragged into the mire also. If this sort of thing is tolerated it will very soon discredit the Party ; drive from it that large body of men who hold as a cardinal principal that a fair day’s work should be rewarded with a fair day’s pay ; and drape it with the black pall of ignominy, which it will never cast oft' until it has acknowledged that such things will no longer be permitted. But we fear—or rather, hope—we do an injustice by assuming that a small section of creditors in a bankrupt estate are entitled to be regarded as the mouthpiece of the Party. Indeed, anyone who has noted the list of voters will see that some of those who voted for the motion are not usually found on the Liberal side, and when the party question is raisfdy s'hre'wd outsiders may attempt to scrutinise matters, and be led to enquire Aow some creditors who up to a few days ■before talked very bitterly in the matter, were yet to be found among the ayes when the time for voting came round.

English papers to hand contain a full report of the great debate recently on the eight hours question, Mr Hyndman contending that such a limit should be a compulsory one, and Mt Bradlaugh taking the negative. Both gentlemen are possessed of abilities that enable them to gain great influence over an audience. Anyone that has but a moderate knowledge of the history of his own time must be aware of Mr Bradlaugh's reputation. Mr Hyndman has had a University education, has made the labor question a long study, and he is described to be a man of good presence, pleasing voice, and an attractive and vivacious speaker. There was a good deal of j feeling shown during the debate, but the I item sent by cable seems to be accurate, that those present were about equally divided in their opinion. However, viewed calmly and dispassionately there is no doubt that Mr Bradlaugh had much the best of the argument. Mr Hyndman dealt mainly with vague generalities and extravagant theories, while Mr Bradlaugh was strong on the basis of solid fact, and gave very convincing arguments that, however desirable might be the shortening of hours, the working men themselves would suffer most by making such a rule compulsory for all classes of labor. He defined “ life” as a reasonable subsistence for the man and l)i’sj family, with time for recreation and education. Such a life, he said,. would •®t any rate; have sunshine in it, while revolutionary, social democracy would only offer brimstone and burning. He contended that maar and man were more likely .to make - fair contracts with each other when they did so voluntarily than when they wercj aided by the law.