The Nelson Evening Mail FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1869.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume IV, Issue 106, 7 May 1869, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1869.

In another column will be found a letter from Dr. Irvine in reply to the remarks made by lis on Wednesday last on the vole given by that gentleman on the question of the West Coast separation movement. ' Dr. Irvine complains that in connection with this subject we mentioned his name more prominently than those of the other, members who voted on the ■same side. We had two reasons for so doing, the first was, that we felt that we werejaaore e -pecially addressing ourselves to the inhabitants of the Town whom Dr. Irvine represents, and the second, that he has already created a name for himself in our little world of politics) in which his opinions carry so much weight that a mistake on his part js likely to be productive of far more serious injury than would be the ease if the same error were committed by men of lesser note. With Dr. Irvine's letter we are as much disappointed as with the - vote given by him the other night; we had hoped that, he would have tendered some explanation of the course he adopted, but not one. word to that effect do we find in the letter bef 6_e'iis,"ii_less the closing sentence, in which he promises at some future day " to show that the paragraph under debate was an ill judged one " may~be~taken as such. 11l judged ! can anything be conceived more ill judged than the* vote given, tlie; pther night by one of the members for the City whose manifest duty iit" was -to. maintain the unity: of the province ? Without one single word of . explanation h$ places on record his disapproval of the Superintendent's determination to oppose in the General Assemby any dismemberment of the province; had he, or had those who- voted 7 with him exercised a* little' foresight they could .7 -not have failed to see the consequences of s,uchan * expression of opidibn.*' -Whata handle have they ■given to the^upppi^ers' of. ithe' petition; to what K extent have they strengthened Mr Stafford's hands J when he^briirgs"itl)erbre~ffie^6use. what i avail will-MrCtirtis' o^posi^ont'^ its" being , en- . *;;. t«tained'now*be, w_eh'a dir^cVansiw-ejr to aU Jus; 'ariiTinifirits has lieen. furnished by •'•-the- Provincial | Council o£Bsl.sgn.,? , Biust .be.on the side £of the rj^tiQja&tpp. willi be the reply; ;yonr own !;<so_ncil, Jwßose evident interest it was to prevent |i*gparatio_f,T bav'e~6_Ty~by^ ex- . ej>ressed ap>&vaPqf sNiit * ■■•• ' •' - »;.-7,l<>',» i riH.lv J. - -sl •■ jiU.'w.'.;7'v'> ti.-ji'-;

Dr. Irvine,, has devoted half of his letter to i quoting his antecedents and; the opinions he has at different times expressed, and saysthatwe must have known all these. Of course we knew them, and it was for this very reason that we experienced. so much surprise and disappointment at the course adopted by him on Tuesday night. We are not at all disposed to accept Dr. Irvine's statement that becanse we were aware of his previous opinions we ought to have paused before we "denounced" him. "By their fruits shall ye know them" is a golden rule that bears the stamp of a very high autbority, and when we see a gentleman who takes a high stand among us, and who is looked up to as an authority, committing so egregious a mistake as even Dr. Irvine himself must allow he made on Tuesday evening, — then we think it is high time to call him to account for it,and not to allow any previous expressions of opinion on his part to interfere with what becomes our obvious duty. We say Dr. Irvine must allow he has committed an error oi judgment, for, accepting his statement (or rather the inference to be drawn from his letter, for he makes no direct statement to this effei-t) that. he did not intend bv his vote to favor the cause of separation, . we would ask him, is not the fact of two out of three of the Nelson journals expressing surprise at that vote> and the interpretation put upon it out of doors as evidenced by the fact of its being in everybody's mouth on the following day that Dr. Irvine had voted for separation, — is not this, we say, sufficient proof, — even if the public were wrong in the deductions they had drawn, — that he had committed the serious mistake of acting in a manner which was very liable to misinterpretation, and which might have been remedied by his stating the grounds on which he had voted? We stated tbat he had advocated Separation; if we misinterpreted him we sincerely regret it, but Dr. Irvine cannot blame us for it, — we could not read the vrorkings of his mind, and we simply had before us the bare fact that he had recorded his disapprobation of the Superintendent's opposing the Separation movement. Dr. Irvine says, "I must do the Editor of the Colonist the justice to say that he enquired of me about my vote with . courtesy and consideration, thereby implying that we,. in not making such inquiries, had displayed a want of courtesy and.consideration. If this is what he means we must take leave to differ from him on this point, as we are not disposed to recognise it as part of the duties of the editor of a newspaper to request each individual member to be good enough to explain his vote, particularly on an occasion of the present Mnd when, it might naturally be supposed, that every member who recorded his vote on the same side as Dr. Irvine would, as a matter of course, take the opportunity of stating to the Council the motives by which he was influenced in voting in a manner wliich was evidently open to the construction that has been placed upon it by the newspapers and the public generally. It will give us great pleasure to publish Dr. Irvine's promised letter, and once more we must express our regret for his own sake and that of the province, that he had not given his reason for voting as he did bef ure the division took place, as by so doing, he would have prevented the misunderstanding which has arisen. We yesterday published a letter from Mr. Gibbs on this same subject. This gentleman was very explicit in his speech to the Council on Mr. Macmahon's amendment, which he ->trongly approved, as he *' considered that both geographically and socially, the inhabitants of the West Coast were an entirely separate people, and thus were much better able to manage their own affairs " This we naturally took to be in favor of the separation movement, and were much -surprised to receive his letter stating thathe voted as lie did merely becau e he considered. the language in the Superintendent's address to be " unnecessarily strong." We are placed at too great a disadvantage in arguing with a gentleman who shifts his ground in this way, and must decline having anything more to say on this matter until Mr. Gibbs has thoroughly male up his mind what were his real reasons for givinar his vote with the opposition. When he is quite clear upon this point we shall be happ y to hear from him.