Nuhou, Volume II, Number 17, 23 Kepakemapa 1873 — WHO IS RESPONSIBLE [ARTICLE]

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE

For the Goyernment of the King ? and the policy of the eountry ? Who else bufc the Ministers that constitute the Cabinet of His Majesty. Then why have we heard so mueh of the selections and measures of the| Chancellor, as though he was a constituent part of the responsible government of the country? It has been assumption his part, permitted by weak andr-inexperienced men, who have accorded to a judiclal officer an intrusive interference on account of the iniluenee exercised by him to obtain for them their undeserved positions, But responsibility ought to rest with supreme and untrammeled authority; and no man of any capacity and with any sense of polhieal honor would accept position, whieh he owed to any extent to an irresponsible inAuenee that would elaim to dictate his course of action and puhlie policy. For instance f what publie man of Europe with the slightest pretensions to take part in Governmental affairs } would aeeept a portfolio, with the policy that was to guide in some measure the discharge of his public function already prepared and announced by another) as has been the case here, when a Chancellor is accredited \vith hddresses from the Throne, whieh ought to be the production chiefly, and reflect somewhat policy, of a Minister of Foreign Affairs, r who is recognized in all constitutional monarchical states as the especial Minister of the King? Has ourpresent Minister of Foreign Affairs, appreciated the responsibilities of his position ? We feel not, and for the good reason that he is not equal to its requirements. Had lie had poliiieal courage or eapacity, he would have resisted all intrusion upon the responsibility of his puhlie function, from whatever source it might eome. If he representecT any ideas, or any policy \vhatever for the advancement of the interests of this country, there might be a basis of hope fo.r his firm assumption of Ministerial reout holding as he does his position by the influence of mere bureaucratic tenure of ofīice, he is willing to accept any instructioa or dictation, and with clerk iike tenacity is bound to hold on under any and all cfrcumstanbes to the mere emolument, without any refejcnce to the honor, that maj be -āttached to his public function. ? Such a mere bureaucratic control of <:ov- © ernment is. unfor(unatc in any country, but particuhrly in this poor little struggling one, that has tlie need in its government of a ripe expericnce of progressive ideas, of active measures, of a vigorous initiative, of a <letcrmiued will, nnd of a high seuse ōf respousibility. ,