Graham v. Gannon.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume I, Issue 31, 23 August 1887, Page 3

Graham v. Gannon.

AN OUTSIDE OPINION. THE WON’T The Napier Daily Telegraph in a recent issue says : — Ihe same mistake is being made with iegard to the East Coast election as has been made at Walpawa. Two Opposition members are running against a Government supporter. It was known from the first that Mr Locke's state of health would present him from offering him--self for re-election. It was only the pressure of his friends-that induced him to withdraw his announcement of retirement, and issue an address. But it was only for a very short time that he presented himself as a - candidate, He has now finally retired from •public life, and we sincerely regret the cause that has compelled him to take this course. The field was then left open to Mr M. J. Gannon and Mr A. McDonald. The first named

gentleman is a pronounced Oppositionist, and holds independent views on the public questions of the day that are deeidedly in advance of those usually put forth by ordinary candidates. Mr A McDonald opposes the Government on their land and native policies, but generally he may be said to side with Sir Robert Stout. When he last sat in the House he was an out-and-out supporter of Sir George Grey, btlt As Mr McDonald does not ike being in -a minority we presume he prefers a sun at mid-day to the sinking luminary at eventide. However, here were two gentlemen offering themselves as candidates for the representation of the East Coast whose political views were so sufficiently distinct as to warrant a contested election. In the meantime Mr Andrew Graham is by some means induced to come forward, some say by “ chaff,” others by flattery. At all -events “he is out ’’ for the district, and his candidature necessarily creates a disturbing influence which may or may not favor either one of the other candidates. His address appears in the Gisborne papers, aud runs on much the same lines as Mr Gannon’s, the difference being that the latter exhibits a better knowledge of public affairs, of existing abuses, and of the remedies required. , , , . While we quite agree with all Mr Graham’s views, we still think that it is a pity he should have come out in opposition as it were to Mr Gannon, and we trust such counsels will prevail as will induce him to retire.