Manawatu Herald. SATURDAY, JUNE 25, 1892. The Rangitikei Election.

Manawatu Herald, 25 June 1892, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. SATURDAY, JUNE 25, 1892. The Rangitikei Election.

The Manawatu Times in writing on the Rangitikei election asserted that if the eontesb tvas a personal one, and " if the result depends on fitness and qualifications " there can be no question that Mr Bruce would win. As the Manawatu Standard does the writing for the Government side, it naturally, but rashly, breaks' out. in a leader as to " Where are Mr Bruce's qualifications ?" and finishes with " Fitness^ forsooth ! There is no greater dreamer, no more extraordinary visionary, no more deplorable instance of talent and learning and ability wasted than in the person of Mr R. Bruce, for the want of some little quality to leaven the whole I" It is but a very short time ago when the editor of the Standard oontested the Palmerston electorate with Messrs J. G. Wilson and John Stevens. During that election, either Mr Pirani> or his supporters prepared, printed, and distributed throughout the electorate a sketch of the political careers of both Messrs Wilson and Stevens. At that election every effort was made to induce voters to believe that Mr Stevens had been brought forward by Mr Wilson's friends to run Mr Pirani, but the gentlemen were so well known that their aimple denial was accepted, and the later events have proved the question beyond doubt. If the present Government, who were then openly supporting Mr Pirani, believed that Mr Stevens was doing his best to oppose their nominee, does it seem likely that they would so trust him now as to avow him their nominee for the Rangitikei seat ? Circumstances alter cases, but if tho "career" of Mr Stevens, published at the last election by the "labour" candidates' party, has the least foundation of truth in it, surely Mr Bruce's fitness for the position, discounted even by the " visionary " failings, as urged by the Standard, should be assured, when guaged by the character given by Mr Pirani's friends, if not by Mr Pirani himself, to Mr Steven*, This remarkable manifesto was headed " Palmeraton Election ; Mr John Stevens in Parliament ; some particulars of his career requiring attention." It then goes on to remark " Mr John Stevens bases his olaims to eleotion to some extent on tho fact that he represented Rangitikei in the House of Representatives, There is no doubt that would be a great recommendation had he done his duty faithfully and well, and, therefore, if the contrary can ba proved, it is a very good proof that it would hardly be safe to place confidence in him a second time." The writer then does his best to persuade his readers that Mr Stevens had not done his duty either faithfully or well, instancing that Mr Stevens did not vote on most of the questions submitted to the House ; In the first session he was absent from 59 divisions, in the second, 54 divisions, and in the third, which only lasted a few weeks, he was absent from three divisions out of five ; that he voted against the one nian-one-voto Bill in 1882; against giving Colonial born subjects 50 acres of land if they settled on it ; he voted agiiinst State aid to fire brigades ; he did not record his vote in favour of the Eight Hours Bill, though it was twice introduced ; he voted in 1883 against the proposal to make wages of workmen a first claim on a bankrupt estate ; though proposing to make Legislative Council elective he voted three times against a Bill which would enable this to be done ; he voted against a proposal to abolish the gold duty; besides as many other little points that the whole study of Mansard for 1882, 1888 and 1884 gave the author the opportunity to pick out. If the labour party believed this manifesto at the last election, will they do so at the Rangitikei election ? If they do not, it will be because they have discovered .the extraordi nary lengths candidates will, at times, gp, to damage the political character of an opponent ; but if they do, they must hold that it would not be safe to place confidence in Mr Stevens again, as he " either voted against measures giving concessions to the masses, or did not record his vote at all," as vide the manifesto. Therefore Mr Bruce should be preferred.