The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE. Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning. Thursday, October 9, 1890. BEGINNING OF THE CAMPAIGN.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 516, 9 October 1890, Page 2

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

Thursday, October 9, 1890. BEGINNING OF THE CAMPAIGN.

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

Though the political meeting on Tuesday night was nominally for the purpose of hearing a post-sessional address, there was no disguise that it was intended as the opening of the electioneering campaign. Indeed, (Mr Arthur went so far as to plead in the meekest accents that his political opponents would deal gently with him. Well, we acknowledge that his very helplessness requires that he should be treated mercifully, for it would not be right to strike too severely at a weak opponent. We had hoped that he would have learned something during the session he has been in Parliament, but fear that such hopes have proved delusive. His air of self-complacency was the only well-acted part in the whole performance. Condensed his speech was simply this : “I, Mr Arthur, am acknowledged not to be a bad sort of a fellow, and we are the Government party. Our only good debater is ill, and we cannot cope with the Opposition, but the latter is composed of brainless idiots, the leaders being the most incapable, and the cloture should be brought into force so that those who oppose us can be gagged straight away. I got the Harbor Bill passed because I am not a bad sort of a fellow, and members voted for it because they liked me, though they were against the Bill. I got some native legislation through by a * fluke,’ the Opposition not being clever enough to detect the trick. I supported the Waiapu Separation Bill because I was the only squatter in Waiapu who did not approve of it, and I thought it better not to risk being ejected from the Whitmorian boat.” The remarkable feature of the address is that the pronoun “I ” is used wherever there is anything that by some stretch of imagination can be claimed to have been accomplished by Mr Arthur; when it was done by Government the ostentatious “ we ” is found acceptable, but there is no mention of the good work done by the Opposition in suppressing attempts to make a host of wretched enactments that would be an infliction on the country. It is not for us to make any defence of the Opposition—some individual members conducted themselves in a way that no one could approve of, as was alsothe case on the Government side ; but it would be useless for us to go further into the matter, when dealing with one who can see nothing but good on his own side, and nothing but evil on that of his opponents. To deal with the points of the address in their order we may first take that of the new Harbor Act. No one for a moment questions that Mr Arthur worked very hard for this Bill—had he failed to do so, he would have found it advisable to pass the summer in some other locality—and there is no wish on our part to detract from any praise that is due to him, nor, for the sake of the district’s name, is it our wish to dwell on the painful admission that it was only carried through some members (judging from their own admission) turning traitors to their country, and supporting a Bill they were against, simply out of friendship to Mr Arthur. It is a most humiliating condition of things, and must make any thoughtful man blush for shame. With his smug air of superiority, Mr Arthur takes nearly all the credit to himself for having saved the district a large sum annually. Is it not just possible that some other man who could rise above the ranks of mediocrity might have managed the same thing, with such a clear case, much earlier in the session, and prevented the suspense which now makes the relief appear so valuable? Mr Arthur might, too, have laid a little more emphasis on the services rendered by Mr Bell, for it is a positive fact that when that gentleman was away from Wellingion, attending the Supreme Court at Gisborne, the Bill was completely disfigured, and was only remodelled on his return.

The other points of the address are hardly worthy of note. The reasoning on the attitude taken up concerning the Waiapu Bill may be credited with ingenuity, if not for soundness, but, it is strange that in this case Mr Arthift can not only approve of opposition to what he believes to be right, but actually support that which he believes to be wrong, when he was at so much pains to inform his hearers that an Opposition, composed of nearly half the men elected to Parliament, has no other object than to obstruct and blackguard the Government.

The attitude taken up in regard to the Labor Bills is instructive. We believe those Bills to have been far from perfect. Mr Arthur, it appears, approves of them, but he justifies the throwing out of what he believes to be good legislation on the plea that a strike having occurred it would be “ panic ” legislation ; in other words directly there is shown to be a necessity for some kind of legislation, it is to be thrown out because the men entrusted with the management of affairs are afraid they may be accused of being “ panic-stricken.’’ Mr Arthur discreetly abstained from expressing an opinion on Unionism, but he has promised to do so in the future—when he discovers “ how the wind blows.’’ He did make one step, and told us that Unionism as at present conducted is not commonsense Unionism.

Another opportunity may be taken to refer to the proposal to suppress the minority in the House by the application of the " gag,” and also on the question of Women’s Suffrage. The address, on the whole, was entertaining, though thinking men would consider it much too watery. It would do very well as an after-dinner speech, but would not rank very high as a sober political address on simple facts,