The Evening Star FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 1872.

Evening Star, Issue 2902, 7 June 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 1872.

It depends much upon the chance oi the day whether the electors of WaiIcouaiti make a wise or foolish use of the opportunity afforded them of aiding or retarding Colonial development. In all elections the mass of the constituency, if they sincerely desire to choose the ablest candidate, must be guided in great degree by personal reputation. They cannot be brought into intimate knowledge of the fitness or unfitness of all who offer to conduct public affairs. If therefore they are to decide from reflection rather than impulse, it is necessary that some evidence should be before them by which they may arrive af a sound conclusion. This is not quite sc necessary when two great principles only, are at stake, rendering it necessary for the advocates of each to take the ablest exponents of them. The field is then narrowed. Every one in England knew whether he was in favoi of or opposed to the extension of the franchise prior to passing the last Reform Bill. No one needed to hesitate between two candidates. The only risk then was that opinion would be divided as to men holding views in common. This is scarcely the case in the Waikouaiti district. So far as the question of national education is concerned, all the candidates, excepting Sir David Monro, speak the same language. They wish religious education to • be thorough, and therefore they would remove it from the school, and make it a separate branch under special teachers —the ministers of the various churches. So far as that question is concerned, public opinion is rapidly being formed. Sir David Monro, however, holds most objectionable views. There is no mistake about the meaning of his address: he is for a. denominational education, and this of itself is sufficient to cause sound thinking men to reject him. The Education Bill, drafted by the Government, will not be made a Government measure ; it is pleasing to no party, and will almost certainly be rejected. The present struggle is not one of principle, but of practice. It is merely this : The present Ministry has planned a policy that Parliament has authorised the carrying out of, and men who opposed that policy say to the electors, “ Trust us to put into execution measures we did not approve.” Now we put it to the common sense of the constituency whether this would not be a most foolish act. It does not necessarily follow that the man who invents a machine will be the best able to work it; but there is every reason to believe that he will bo belter acquainted with his own design than any one else, and more sincerely anxious for its success. He will carefully watch the adaptation of each part to the whole, more readily discern where alteration is needed—where it requires easing or where tightening. The man who was superintending the working of an old worn out machine in the making of which he had a hand, and which experience proved did more harm than good, should be the last person in the world to be trusted in guiding the new one ; especially if he persisted in trying to introduce some of the old works into it. Now this is precisely the case, in our political machinery. We have Sir D. Monro, Mr Cutten, and Mr Hutcheson declaring themselves decided opponents of the inventors of the industrial policy of the country. Not one of them has testimonials to shew that he is able to correct a single plan in it, and each bases his opposition on personal hostility to the inventor. Dr. Webster is undecided, but apparently with a leaning to doubt the advantage of the change. There remains Mr Preston, who at any rate is so far to be trusted that he does not allow himself to be biassed by personal hostility to any Ministry. It seems to us then that men of sound judgment would arrive at the right conclusion by supporting him ; for opposition on vague and personal grounds is always a sign of mental weakness. There is something ungenerous in the desire to pull a man down who has climbed above us, especially when thei’e is not the slightest chance of ever taking his place ,* and we scarcely think that any of the three candidates, who have expressed themselves so strongly against the present Government, even in his vainest moment ever imagined the country would be safe in trusting its destinies in his hands. We are by no means defending the present Government in its errors : but this is certain, that no new contrivance, nor no new policy, was

ever perfected at once. There is more difficulty in the adaptation of social machinery than technical to the work proposed, because of the opposition of men of different ideas; and because of the difficulty of finding fit instruments to effect the various processes. The complaint so speciously put forward by some of the candidates, that the Government has done nothing, may be considered something in their favor, if it be proved that their apparent inaction has arisen from careful preparation of means. The worst feature in an election is that candidates frequently commit themselves to assertions that may suit the exigency of the moment, but which time proves to be utterly unfounded. When it is said the Government for twelvemonths have had money, but have only made two miles and a-half of tramway, does it therefore follow that they have done nothing ? A most important feature in railway construction is a well devised plan. Mr Gotten said the plan should have been made, and then authority obtained. Had this been done, Mr Gotten, Sir David Monro, et id genus omue, would have pointed to the scheme as wild and visionary, and with their will we should have had no railways. None ought to know better than Mr Gotten that a large portion of the time necessary for an extended scheme of railway construction must be devoted to preparing plans. The hollowness of their opposition ought to lead to their rejection, and we think the electors of Waikouaiti district will not trust their interests in the hands of a man of that clique.