The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas Et Prevalebit. MONDAY, JULY 21, 1884. The Last Shriek.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1309, 21 July 1884, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas Et Prevalebit. MONDAY, JULY 21, 1884. The Last Shriek.

On Saturday we commented on the fact that up to the time when it was known that Mr Ivess was to meet with strong opposition at Wakanui, the readers of the Mail, for all that journal said about the matter, were left in absolute ignorance that a general election was imminent. The reason we gave for this strange silence was unquestionably the right one, namely, that the late member for Wakanui, while his own seat remained safe, did not care a brass farthing who was returned for Ashburton, He had cunningly contrived to get Mr Wason to commit himself to stand for the latter constituency, and with characteristic selfishness he left his quondam opponent but present bosom friend to shift for himself. If our contemporary was slow in commencing the battle it must be confessed that he has not been idle since he started. The three copies of that paper published last week contained a prolonged shriek of agony, and the corrupt sore that has been festering for the past seven days has now burst, and the filth has come forth in the shape of an “extra number ” of the Mail published this morning. Abuse of ourselves has a conspicuous place in this wonderful production, while everybody who has attempted to say anything in favor of Mr Walker and Mr Grigg, or against Mr Ivess and Mr Wason, is spoken of in terms of contempt. Considering the past career of the Mail and its proprietor, we should say that every man with a respect for himself will regard such disapproval of his conduct as is expressed in our local contemporary this morning not only with complacency but as an absolute As to the silly charge brought against the Guardian by one of the “inspired” correspondents, to the effect that this paper has adopted a “ scurrilous tone” during the present election, it is not worthy of a moment’s notice. We have carefully refrained from discussing the question from a personal point of view, while the best proof that our reports of the speeches delivered by different candidates have been correct and unbiassed is that both Mr Wason and Mr Ivess have paid us unsolicited compliments in regard to them. Let us look at the other side of the picture. When Mr Grigg spoke at the Town Hall on Monday last, the Mail of the next morning, under the thin veil of pretence that space was wanting, omitted to give even a short summary of the address, while the reports of the same candidate’s meetings in other places have been so grossly garbled that we question if such unworthy conduct can be paralleled in the whole history of colonial journalism. Not 1 only this, but the back files been ransacked to discover something to the detriment of either Mr Walker or Mr Grigg, not to prove that they have been guilty of political inconsistency, which we hold would have been perfectly justifiable, but to trot out some trumpery Court cases in which these gentlemen figured, in one instance as far back as 1879- The cause that needs such petty tactics as these to bolster it up must be bad indeed, and this forlorn hope in the shape of the Mail's extra number is a pitiable failure. If the electors are influenced in the slightest degree by this deluge of correspondence, not excepting the specimen of the most abject doggrel it has ever been our misfortune to hap upon, they must be altogether devoid of intelligence. One of the principal points in the objections offered against the candidatures of Mr Walker and Mr Grigg is that these gentlemen have been brought forward and are being supported by a «clique,” To prove this, the correspondent in the Mail already mentioned has thought it advisable to publish the list of shareholders of the Guardian. Although this actibn was not exactly what one would expect from an honorable man, we have certainly no particular objection to the list being made public. It is in'fact a cheap advertisement, for the insertion of which we have to thank our contemporary. At the same time we fail utterly to see that it proves anything, except that this journal is a very stable concern, in which the electors can put their trust. As to whether our conduct has been “ unscrupulous and bitter ” is for our readers to determine, and we have no fear of the verdict of those who have perused our articles. The works of wordy demagogues like Mr Ivess we detest with our whole soul, for the reason that we consider that the election of such men constitutes a real danger to the State. Mr Wason, we have always admitted, stands upon an altogether higher social plane, but he has forgotten the truth of the old proverb which tells him that it is impossible to touch pitch and remain undefiled, and he has only himself to blame if he has lost many of his former friends on account of his recent association with the cause of the late member for Wakanui. And after all what does this accusation of “ cliqueism ” amount to? If the correspondents of our contemporary will take the trouble to consult an English dictionary, a volume we are afraid they are little conversant with, they will find that there a clique is defined as a party. Are Mr Ivess and Mr Wason not as much the nominees of a clique as are their opponents? The only question is, therefore, which party is the most influential and the most worthy of trust ? It is the veriest nonsense to affirm that the voters of this or any other district will be governed by class prejudices. Mr Ivess may obtain a comforting cheer when he tells the open-mouthed bucolics that capital is crushing them, and Mr Wason may induce a few people to believe that his scheme for a multiplicity ot Railway Boards for the colony is practicable, but this class, we are glad to say, is in a very small minority as will be shown to-morrow, when the ballot boxes are made to disclose their secrets.