The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1870.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2385, 23 November 1870, Page 2

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1870.

We have no doubt that “Nemo,” whoever ho may be, intended by bis letter to show how exceedingly cleverly Mr Stout cross-questioned Mr Driver, and probably, for such is the peculiarity of some men’s minds, he may fancy that his minute account of the questions and answers proves Mr Driver to have been nonplussed. Of that hereafter. We do not think Mr Stout has any reason to be proud of the notoriety he is likely to gain through the efforts of his champion, although through the prominent part he has played latterly at meetings of electors, he has become well known as a catechiser. As, however, with or without his consent, a pretty faithful report of his style of proceeding is now on record, the opportunity is afforded of saying a few words on behalf of candidates ; and this is the more necessary as the elections are approaching. Mr Stout is gifted with several requisites for public display. He has nerve, gift of tongue, and uncommon selfcommand. In addition to those constitutional advantages, ho has read much, and has apparently dabbled so far in logic as to have learnt so much of the Socratic method as to put questions which, if answered in the way he anticipates, will put his intended victim “ into a hole.” A writer on logic tells us that Socrates did not scruple to adopt the interrogatory method of disputation, for the purpose of leading any person with whom he might happen to dispute, by the concession of some point which seemed unavoidable, into absurdity. Even if this were fairly done, we contend that no candidate

should be subjected to such a test, nor should any member of Parliament giving an account of even his own conduct be subjected to such ill-mannered cross-questioning. All that in fairness should be asked of a candidate is a full expression of his opinions—all that should be expected of a member is a fair history of, facts. Neither the one nor the other is there to contend with a dialectician. It is courteous on their parts to answer any question tending to remove doubts in the minds of their hearers; but to enter into an argument with one who conies prepared with set questions and foregone conclusions, is no part of the end and purpose of his meeting his constituents. To illustrate what we mean, wc will reproduce “ Nkmo’s ” report of the dialogue between Mr Driver and Mr Stout, which appears to have been recorded with more care than it deserved ;

Mr Stout : You say that the Hundreds Act was passed to save the squatter from injustice. Is that so ?

Mr Driver : It is so,

Mr Stout ; By preventing land being taken from them and thrown into the market ?

Mr Driver : I suppose so. Mr Stout : You also say that the Hundreds Act is an Act more calculated than any other which has yet been passed to promote settlement ? Mr Driver : And so it is.

Mr Stout : That is to say: The Hundreds Act, while it throws obstacles in the way of persons obtaining land, is yet calculated to promote in a high degree the settlement of land. It will be observed three questions were put, each of which Mr Driver answered in such a way as to express his belief that the Hundreds Regulations Act was calculated to do good—but the second is worded in such a manner as to entrap any person into just such an answer as was given ; and that obtained, a mere dialectic blunder is treated as a triumphant contradiction. No doubt it would be a great advantage to a public man if he were duly drilled and trained in all the mysteries of simple and complex syllogisms,; so that he could, amid all the

excitement and distraction of a public meeting, at a glance weigh the import of each member of a proposition, and the value of each word. Few men, however, are equal either by nature or education to this, nor ought it to he required that anyone should be subjected to it for the amusement of one person, who having at his leisure cut and dried his questions, puts them in such a Avay as to perplex by their surprise, and through the necessity of giving a prompt, off-hand reply. MiStout is quite aware that the most acute logician is not always on his guard, and he ought to know that such a style of cross-questioning as he has hitherto been tolerated in pursuing, although applicable to eliciting truth from a witness in a court of justice, is not in place in a public meeting. No gentleman ought to be subjected to it, and no meeting ought to ask it at his hands. The electors of Dunedin have been treated to several such exhibitions lately. Mr Stout’s was not the proper course to take. After obtaining the answers, he should have either been content, or, when the vote was proprosed, moved a counter-resolution based on the single doubtful reply he received. Instead of which he put another question, the only purpose of which seemed to bo to display his dialectic triumph, and then complained of being insulted wlmn he only received a deserved rebuff for having transgressed the rules of good breeding. There is at all times difficulty in securing the services of able men to represent us, but that difficulty will bo immeasurably enhanced if they are to bo subjected to such ordeals as our City representatives have had to endure. We say this not for the sake of one or two, but on behalf of all, it is quite right to know a candidate’s opinions, but a meeting ought not to tolerate attempts to shine at other people’s expense.