The Evening Star. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1870.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 246, 22 October 1870, Page 2

The Evening Star. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1870.

It is with very great satisfaction that we learn of the success that lias attended the canvas of Ciiy West iv favor of Mr. Gillies, and the large number of influential names that have already attested the confidence of the electors and their determination to send the Superintendent to Wellington as one of the representatives of the city. This journal was the first to advocate the selection of Mr. Vogel as representative of City Fast, and while our contemporaries were silent or inimical, we ceased not to agitate aud urge that Auckland city should do itself honor and conserve its best interests by confiding those interests to a representative of such ability, influence, and position. What has been said of Mr. Vogel is true of Mr. Giilies, and if Auckland city iets piss Ihe opportunity of being represented by such a man, the city will be the loser. We are aware that efForts are made to show the unwisdom of selecting as reprcsentives of one community members who will take an opposite stand on the floor of the House; and much is attempted to be made of the supposed fact that by doing so the vote of Auckland will be neutralised. Jf this were true of the whole policy of the session, and all the subjects of debate, the folly would be at once apparent. Or even if true of questions on which Auckland city had an undivided interest, the constituencies might reasonably demand that such a suicidal course should not to be tolerated. If, for example, Mr. Vogel and Mr. Gillies were divided on the question of tho San Francisco mail route, and especially as to the port of call in New Zealand, this city would have a right to demand an undivided vote, in accordance with the undivided sentiments of constituents. But while Mr. Yogel and Mr. Gillies equally hold that native industries would be of boundless value to the country, it is monstrous to think that Mr. Giilies should bo tabooed because he doos not agre.i with Mr. Vogel as to the means of their attainment, and considers protection to be erroneous. We believe most steadfastly in the protective policy, and in its absolute necessity as the means of developing home industries in young colonies. Mr. Gillies does not ; and we can only pray for his further enlightenment. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that Mr. Gillies' sentiments are shared by a large section of our fellow-citizens, who have sunk their consideration in eagerness to secure Mr. Vogel as our representative, aud which, as affecting the general policy of the country, have as mucli right to be represented from, this community as the protective' principles which some of us so strongly hold. In the requisition to Mr. Vogel the question of, protection—the riiairi one at issue between Mr. Gillies and the Ministry—was not raised, aud rightly so ; and free-traders vied with protectionists in doing honor to one who lias deserved well of Auckland; feeling that while doing so they were securing to themselves ability, eloquence, influence, and position second to none in the House of .Representatives. Let us not throw dust in one another's eyes. The bond of self-interest united us, and no question of general policy but Mr. Vogel's ability and position secured him the united support of the most diverse sections of the people. Let the same principle be applied to Mr. Gillies. On local questions of common local interest we have a right to expect''vruiform sentiments, and undivided votes from our representrtives, but that Auckland city or Auckland province should demand a " block vote" on questions of general policy is a monstrous travestie of freer representative institutions. And should the constituencies ever reduce our representatives to the position of delegates, and demand that on questions of general

policy, on which all nicn have a right to free thought, the members of the city or province should .vote in a " bunciii" we ; heartily hope that the,; : representitives of the Southern provinces wiil'combine and overwhelm ,'tho conspiracy." On the general policy of the Ministry there is diversity of sentiment in this community, and it is noi unreasonable that this diversity should' be represented. Mr. Gillies will inevitably hold a seat in the new House of Kepresentn'tives, and the bugbear of neutralized votes will none the less exist. But; Auckland demands that'she should bo represented by brains and eloquence, and influence worthy of her position and pretensions ; and with two such leaders of debate as Mr. Vogel and Mr Gillies, however differing legitimately on general questions, united iv protectionofourintcrests A uckland, v\ ill be respectable in Parliament. With the personal differences of these two gentle men we have nothing to do. Two suns cannot shine in the same sky, nov two lions roam the same forest. But in our own interest we must try to make them as far as possible dwell together in unity. That Mr. Gillies can be returned for City West liis requisition eliows ; and while we should consider thai any organised opposition raised against him by the friends of the victorious Treasurer would be in very bid taste, we shall most unhesitatingly say th-ifc if Mr. Gillies does not accept the influential requisition in course of preparation, and stand for City West, he shows the Ci white feather," and is afraid of Mr. Yogel;