POLITICAL MEETING AT THE ARROW.

Evening Star, Issue 3218, 13 June 1873, Page 3

POLITICAL MEETING AT THE ARROW.

In consequence of the number of people in town on Saturday evening, it was considered advisable to hold a public meeting in the Library Hall The bellman was accordingly sent round, and a considerablenumber attended. On the motion of Mr R. Clarke, seconded by Mr John A Miller, MrW. Paterson, J.P., took the chair. The Chairman briefly opened the proceedings. He believed it was generally understood that the meeting had been called to test public feeling respecting the approaching elections for Superintendent and members of the Provincial Council. , , Mr R. Clabke said it was unfortunate that no public notice of the meeting had appeared in toe papers in the usual way, but he believed most people had somewhat considered the subject, and were well posted upinthe circumstances attending the late dissolution. Much credit, he thought, was due both to the Superintendent and to the Council, for so soon bringing the affair to a head, as matters would else have soon come to a dead-lock. As many probably had not seen Mr Macandrew’s Address to the people of Otago, he would read it. (Address read.) That Address was accompanied by his opening Address to the Council, and the Provincial Estimates. When he first came to this district, ho thought if all that was said against Mr Macandrew was correct, such a man was most unfit to be placed in so important a position, and that he ought to be punished; but he had seen a great change for the better in toe district since that time. Then everyone thought to make as much as possible, and get away again out of toe country quickly; but now everyone was seeking how to stay and live in it. He believed that that was owing, in a great measure, to the public works inaugurated, by which every man could get employment if he liked, and for which toe means had been provided by Mr Vogel. Public works were being •vigorously prosecuted in the Province, and for BQme Of them at least they might thank Mr Macandrew, There was no doubt but that the country would again return him. Mr J. A. Miller said that, as a member of Committee of the Miners’ Association, he had been frequently brought in contact with the Superintendent, and could therefore speak from full data. In all transactions he had found him both courteous and punctual to his promise, in every way showing that the mining community had his full sympathy. He believed that both sides were to blame in the late crisis, but he was not politician enough to discuss toe matter fairly. Some thought that if the Superintendent had called the Council together at the first, the crisis might have been avoided; but he believed the same result would have resulted. Mr Macandrew had acted as a true and well deserved their confidence. The Opposition wished to throw him out, by forcing upon him an Executive with which it was impossible to work, and the result would have been a thorough dead-lock. In comparing Mr Macandrew with Mr Gillies, he had perhaps come to rather a hard conclusion against toe latter. When Mr Maoandrew visited the district, he expressed himself thoroughly in favor of the miners, and pointed out that the public works policy rendered more money available for the development of the country districts. He was a thorough progressionist. As for Mr Gillies, slight things often showed the bent of a man’s mind, as chaff thrown up before the wind. About six months ago, at a meeting at Mosgiel, Mr Gillies was one of the speakers, and referred to miners as the “new iniquity,” aqd Pftid the prosperity of the country wa« owing to the old identities. Any man who could make such an assertion was not worthy of their confidence. He must have been aware that such a statement would go forth to the country, and would not be confined to Mosgiel; it must, therefore, be taken as a defiance. We must conclude that he, as an old identity, had a “ down ” on the new iniquity, and hud no sympathy with them. As a working man and a miner, he begged to move, “That to« meeting has full confidence Mr M&c* Q drew, and considers him a most fit and proper person to be Superintendent of Otago.” Mr R. Clarke seconded toe motion.

Mr Jas. Miller said there were always two sides to every question, and in this case the other side was unrepresented. The speakers were all against the Council. Now, the question arose, had the Council no legislative functions ; and was the Superintendent right in dispensing with their services ? It is possible th§ same result would have occurred as at present ; but not at such a bad season of the year. There was no time to consider the matter. He had before been in favor of the Superintendent, but he was not now. The Superintendent could have dispensed with the Council after, supplies had been voted. His Address was all cut and dried, as h e had a year to prepare it in, whilp the Council had only fourteen days to consider it in. Mr GoldstoN did not think that what the district could do would much influence the election. Hie speakers had spoken highly of Mr Macandrew, and he believed he had acted well as their Superintendent, until he had lately come into contact with him. He would like to hear an explanation of the telegram which he sent on the Ist May, promising that nothing should be done respecting the Kawarau Falls bridge until the Council met; while he directly after called for fresh tenders in the Gazette, to close on the 14th May. He considered he had broken his word; but if that could be accounted for he would be satisfied. Mr J. A. Milleb explained that the Superintendent said that ho would do nothing till the Council met It was no use bringing the matter before the Council unless tenders were first called ; but if tenders were accepted that altered the case. The motion on being put by the Chairman was carried unanimously. Mr B. Clarke said from the length of time Mr Tones had represented the district, and the way be had acted in the past, he had pleasure in proposing “ That Mr Innes is a fit and proper person to represent the Arrow in the Provincial Council.” Mr James Miller, in seconding the motion, thought the one motion negatived the other. They put one man in to oppose the other. Mr L. Harris considered Mr Innes was a supporter. Because he was against the dissolution was no proof of his antagonism to Mr Macandrew. If he was returned he would benefit the district. Mr R. Clarke said that Mr Maoandrew was a political man of war from his youth. Mr Innes was not so practised in politics : and even the previous speaker admitted having changed his mind. If he made a mistake in opposing the Superintendent he was not to be blamed, as he was comparatively a young soldier. He was very fit and proper for the post, and, as they had seen, could stand even against the Superintendent if he were in the wrong. The jpotion was then put and carried unanim&j*

Mr J. MILLER believed that the Arrow, district would be content to return one member to the Council; but if Queenstown nominated two. he thought they ought also to nominate two, and that the district could return them. Ho would propose “ That Mr Clarke be asked to stand in conjunction with Mr Innes.”— (ApP Mr iL Clarke said it would be impolitic for him to accept the position at that time. He thought it would be better to > return one member for the district than to divide the vote; but if the district was united, and wished to return both, let them try again at some future time, and he would not resist their wishes. Mr J. A. Miller said it would only injure the cause of the district if they were not able to carry both members ; the result might be that they would get none at all. It would be better not ip drive the Queenstown people into union against them. Mr James Miller said the Queenstown district was a smaller one than the Arrow, and had fewer votes. If they got a bridge over the Falls it would tend to injure the district. If they had only one member they might succeed in getting a bridge at the Moryen Ferry, and perhaps no bridge at all; but if they had two representatives in their favor they might carry the point. . , Mr Clarke thought, if each district returned one member, itwould be best. The Chairman said it would be unfair to try and return two members, and there was a possibility that they would not get one. < The motion being put to the meeting, there were 14 for and 14 against, a large number not voting. The motion was about being again put, when . ~, ... Mr Clarke hoped the motion would be withdrftwn Mr J. A, Miller considered the Arrow-dis-trict ought not to arrogate to itself the position of returning both members. The motion was withdrawn. It was proposed and seconded, “ That a working committee be formed to promote the return of Messrs Macandrew and Innes.” The following gentlemen were nominated as a committee, with power to add to their number : Messrs W. Paterson, R. Clarke, Healey, J. A. Miller, Harris, Symonds, F. Evans, 0. Hay, H. Graham, P. Butei, R. Pritchard, M’Whirter, Goldston, Scoles, W. Aitkenhead, Douglas, B. Walker, A. Aitken, R. Watson, Dominigoni, Thomas, and Girard. After the usual vote of thanks to the chair, three cheers each were given for Mr Macandrew and Mr Innes, and the meeting separated.