Moreton Bay Courier (Brisbane, Qld. : 1846 - 1861), Thursday 15 March 1860, page 2


To the Editor of the Moreton Bay Courier.

SIR,--So I perceive the laird of Kinellan (or some one for him) has deigned to ex-plain the why and the wherefore we are to be excluded from a portion of the gardens. Did I say explain--nay rather it is a sub-terfuge, in keeping with that worthy's other exhibitions of political imbecility. What need we care if tho trustees have resigned their trust, or that the Executive has as-sumed it. Mr. Mackcnzie who repudiates his responsibility as trustee, does not ex-onerate himself by his statement that the control of the gardens was transfered to the Executive. He, as a member of that body, has to submit to the opprobrium this act en-genders, as he denies the responsibility of trust in his own capacity, and assumes the right of disposal in his other. Because a certain trust is invested in certain indivi-duals yeleped trustees (who merely fulfilled the object of their creation), these trustees either to serve their own ends, or relieve themselves of an irksome responsibility, transfer the trust to the " powers that be," to be used as that infallible justiciary may wisely determine--are we, I ask, tamely to submit to a rescission of our privileges ? If they think so they are most wofully mis-taken, for I maintain it is an infringement porfectly unconstitutional, and a gross piece of official chicanery.

But a now light is thrown on the subject by Mr. Walter Hill, who evidently ignores the authority of the Executive, by his state-ment that the fence was erected by order of --whom ? Why those very trustees, who, through their quondam associate, deny their existence in that capacity. Mr. Walter Hill is evidently far too honest to connive in the dissimulation of his superior, and by his straightforward exposition " let the cat out of the bag." He says the fence was ordered by the trustees to be erected for the purpose of dividing the uncultivated from the culti-vated portion of the garden, and to make a " paddock for tho horses employed in the department." There's the rub.

Then the public are to be deprived of their legitimate property for tho convenience of the "department horses?" These must be noble animals, "and thankful and ever reminiscent will be the public for this mark of consideration and forethought on the part of the trustees, for their provision of this in-

estimable source of instruction and amuse-

ment. A menagerie will be a great acqui-sition to our botanic gardens, and the acclamations of delight of the Bris-bane citizens at witnessing tho gambols of the treasurer's brown colt, and tho secretary's grey filly through tho vines of the fence, will ascend as grateful incense to the nos-trils of these self-immolated Solons. Mr. Hill also informs us we are not to be ex-cluded from that portion of the gardens ; if so, why is it railed off? .To keep in the horses ! Then surely to keep out the public, for I can't believe the intention is, to make a paddock with free ingress, and egress for man and boast. The ' Department's horses' would soon make the discovery of this pri-vilege, and the superintendent would then have occasion indeed, to complain of the nocturnal floral peccadilloes. " Coming events cast their shadows before " and most

truly, as it has been predicted in your Ips-wich contemporary, these instances of pri-vate interest, personal aggrandisemont, and ministerial incapacity, plainly indicate the speedy downfall of tho present administra-tion. Yours,

BORAX.