East Coast Election.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 538, 29 November 1890, Page 3

East Coast Election.

[to the editor.] Sir,—Up to the present I have refrained from taking any active part in thia election, simply because we have to face an argument which is like unto a two-edged sword, it cuts both ways, and that is:—Whether in returning Mr Kelly, he not being a local man, or returning Mr Arthur, he being the local man, our interests will be beat served. It has been constantly dinned into my ears that we do not want “ local legislation,’’ but what is wanted is “ Colonial legislation.” Now I must confess it is just here where I am rather puzzltd, for, in my opinion, neither of those gentlemen hold what may be termed •* broad principle?,” but if it is a fact that the success of a country, city, or district, depends upon its population for its greatness, either in commerce, manufacture, or learning, then I am compelled to say it is not safe to have a majority of our Parliament composed of sheepfarmers ; they will of necessity legislate for large areas of land, for the more acres the more sheep, and the more sheep the greater the wealth. It should not be our sole object to keep England in meat and wool ; we should begin to realise the fact that we are growing, and should long ere this have been standing alone, and we should not be in such an humb’e position as to require the foreign capital in the shape of loans. What we do need is population, in order to convert our wealth into articles of everyday use, and not to be sending our good timber to other countries, for them to manufacture and send back to us. The same with our wool, and our minerals; we send them all away instead of bringing people to our shores, where they would, by means of the wealth at their disposal, make very good livings, and increase the prosperity of our already rich country. It has been said if people come to New Zealand they will only Starve. Lazy people certainly may, but if we had a good and healthy inflow of people, and cheap land to place them on, I guarantee there would be no such thing as even want. Men are not not content with idleness ; they will work, and when they work they produce the requirements of each other, hence they do increase wealth. The question now resolves itself into this—are we going to content ourselves with large blocks of land in the hands cf a few, and stand and look at the depopulation of New Zealand, or are we going io force the Government to open up the land acd cfler it xn the cheapest way to people who are willing to become bona fide pettier?, also to people who will biing up the wealth of our mines, and the wealth of our forest?, and by their labor h?ip to make the small towns into cities, and the cities into at least double the present size ? If Colonial legislation means that every district will get according to what it contributes to the revenue, then I agree ; but if not, then I say we must stick to local legislation. la any ease, I hope when the present contest is ovar s that men who are in possession of the broadest views will be returned. The two p»inpi pies are A good sound education up to the gixih standard, and land in the cheapest possible way and simplest tenure; then the remainder is safe.— l am, etc., Elector.