The Nelson Evening Mail. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 18,1879.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIV, Issue 238, 18 October 1879, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1879.

Those who have a file of the Colonist within reach we would recommend to look up tbe issue of the 19th August, and in the light of recent events to peruse the leader of that date. For the benefit of such as are unable to obtain a copy of the paper we wiil give a few extracts. The article is headed " Expenditure in Nelson," and after showing how the public works policy had deviated from the scheme as originally laid down until " Ministers with a certain amount of crooked cleverness " had learned to strengthen their hold on office by so the expenditure as to gratify populous districts and thus compel their representatives to give their support, the writer goes on to aay : — " With the accession to power of Mr Maeandrew, it was evident to every person that as long as he reigned the interests of Otago to the exclusion of any reasonable amount of consideration for any other part of the Colony was to be the rule. In these columns it was shown that, spite of the boasted superiority of that province, it was and iB largely drawing on the resources of other districts, Nelaon being especially wronged to provide the difference between the earnings of the railway in Otago and the interest their construction imposed on the Consolidated Fund. No one bas ever dared to impeach the accuracy of our calculations, and they have been found, by candidates on the hustings and members in the House, an effective point for winning applause or confounding the Minister, without their origin being referred to, save by Mr Sharp in the debate on the Railways Construction Bill last year. Whatever may be at the bottom of this cool appropriation of our labors, no doubt there is a certain amount of satisfaction in finding they are bo widely appreciated ; but common courtesy, if nothing more, ought to have caused an acknowledgment, however curt, to be made. So long as the welfare of Nelson is advanced, plagiarists may shine in their borrowed plumes for anything we care, especially as Mr Maeandrew, in his eagerness to make a case, furnishes the opportunity of exposing a' new and outrageously gross set of misstatements which it is our bounden duty to deal with " We have quoted this paragraph in full because it alludes at some length to an article that appeared in a previous issue of the Colonist, and of which Mr Shephard at his meeting at Wakefield referred to himself as the writer. It is therefore fair to suppose that c t-*s also the author of that which we have n^ before us, and it will be interesting to examine it carefully with the view of seeing what was then Mr Shepbard's opinion of Mr Maeandrew, of whom he is now a declared supporter. After quoting from the Statement of the Public Works Minister, in which it is made to appear that a sum of .£57,337 had been spent in Nelson, the editor of the Colonist says.— "Of course, if that were true, it would become us to speak with bated breath, and to admit that Mr Maeandrew had given effect to tne declaration in his speech in reply on the second reading of his Bill. He said then 'if anything would make me continue in o«ce it would be that I might be afforded an opportunity of heaping coals of fire upon the heads of my Nelson friends.' " But the figures produced by Mr Maeandrew were far from the truth, and in a burst of honest indignation, tbat does him credit, our contemporary exclaims :— tt,";What an odious, disgusting, and des-

picable piece of cant this is, the sums exactly piaking up tbe amount he asserts was spent in Nelson will prove to any remaining adorer or this incarnation of sham and shoddy." It is Mr Maeandrew, the late Minister for Public Works, and possib] v the coming 1 remier who is thus alluded to. Having shown that, instead of £57,3:3:, but £9,726 was fairly chargeable to Nelson. from which the writer argues that the Minister could not have been actuated either by common honesty or even common sense iv making such a statement, the Colonist proceeds to make a capital hit at Mr Macandrew's expense in the following words -.— " Last year he said, I have no desire to be pilloried, as I have been, and continue to be, by the Press in tbat part of the Colony. What ought he to expect ? The pillory was an ancient institution in England, often used to correct those bearing false witness against their neighbors, and Mr Maeandrew rightly refers to it as the fitting instrument whereby his assertions to the prejudice of Neisou are punished." The late Minister for Public Works and the expectant Premier is the gentleman who, on the 19th of August, the editor of the Colonist thought ought to be pilloried. The writer then proceeds to assure his readers that "the revolting catalogue of mis-statements might be prolonged." and that it contained items " that must be quoted as an outrageous example of what a desperate trickster may resort to." This is the respectful manner in whicli the editor of the Colonist spoke of the late Minister for Public Works aud the now expectant Premier on the 19th of August last. And now we come to the final paragraph in this article, in whicb, after producing indictment after indictment against Mr Maeandrew, the editor of the Colonist proceeds to pronounce sentence in the following words:— "Language cannot express the loathing every honest man must feel at such an insult to Parliament and country, as a Minister placing figures before them as true with the deliberate intent to deceive and lead astray." ! ! ! To be loathed by every honest man ! It is a terrible sentence, but one of whicb the editor of the Colonist honestly thought Mr Maeandrew to be deserving. But the curious part of it is that a very few weeks later, the judge who thus severely condemned the late Minister for Public Works and now expectant Premier was found voting with him. Now no one who knows Mr Shephard would for a moment believe tbat he would vote for a man whom he loathed, consequently it is fair to assume that he does not loathe Mr Maeandrew, and therefore, upon the showing of the editor of the Colonist, Mr Shephard cannot be —•but the inference is so palpable tbat we will not insult the intelligence of our readers by pointing it out. Mr Maeandrew reads the Nelson papers. We know that, because he speaks of having been pilloried by thepressof thedistrict.and it is therefore more than probable that he saw the Colonist's article of the 19th of August. How the wily old Scot must chuckle after every • interview with Mr Shephard when he thinks of the then and the now, and reflects that among bis present supporters is included one who but a very few weeks ago could not find terms sufficiently opprobrious in which to write of him. This is the amusing feature in the case, but it has also a serious side, and one that cannot be lightly passed over. It is this. Can a representative be doing justice to his constituents, or to the country at large, when he by his vote assists to retain in office a man whom he himself regards as " the incarnation of sham and shoddy," '• a bearer of false witness against his neighbors," " a desperate trickster," and one whose actions have been such as to excite the " loathing of every honest man." ?