The Nelson Evening Mail. WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1880.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XV, Issue 125, 26 May 1880, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1880.

In a bitter article entitled "The Nelson Sturdy Beggars," the Christchurch Press rails against the people of Nelson, and condemns them wholesale for their persistent efforts to be included within the railway scheme of the colony, in which they were, from the time that the public works policy was initiated, led to believe tbat they were to be participators. The following paragraph will be sufficient to give an idea of the general tone of tho article: — " The « Nelson vote ' has become a by-word in the House ever since the Public Works policy was established. Sir Julius Yogel found it a seriouß difficulty. He wanted it at firat rather badly, but he saw plainly enough that it was only to be had at a greater price than it was worth. The Nelson members made no secret of their determination to make their support dependent on Nelson gettiug its full share of the public works expenditure, without any reference to the question of whether that expenditure would be remunerative or not. Their plea for this line of con- [ duct was that the whole business was a scramble, that it was a case of each for himself and the devil take the hindermost, and that if they displayed more virtue than their neighbours, Nelson would simply be snuffed out altogether. There was apparently a certain amount of justice in this argument. Tbe whole business was a selfish scramble. It offered a direct premium to political corruption, and it was hard indeed for any but men of lofty views and firm purpose to preserve a course of rectitude amid the unblushing and triumphant immorality that surrounded them. How far that may be deemed to palliate the conduct of the Nelson members is a matter of opinion. Suffice it to say that the consequences of that conduct were at least as injurious to Nelson as to the rest of the ! colony. Having courted corruption, Nelson was unhesitatingly deceived. It got its price at the time, partly in cash and partly in prorrises which were never meant to be kept, and ever since has been regarded by all Governments and all parties alike as a mere thing of convenience." Perhaps it would have been too much to expect of the Press that it should fairly state the case before pronouncing judgment, but since it has not done so it becomes necessary that we should briefly state the exact facts. It had long been an object of desire to the people of Nelson to be connected with the West Coast by a railway passing through the valley of the Buller, and as the provincial funds were too small for so extensive an undertaking, and the money was not to be easily borrowed, other means of achieving the end in view were sought for. A survey was made, and an exhaustive report drawn up showing the probable cost of the line, and the features and capabilities of the country through which it was to pass. It is needless to follow point by point all the negotiations that ensued, but their result was that the firm of Brogden and Co. was about to enter into an agreement for the construction of the railway, in consideration of receiving a certain quantity of land. But just about that time Sir Julius Yogel was about to give birth to his great pub.ic works policy, and a. his request the negotiations with the Messrs Brogden were allowed to lapße, lest they should in any way interfere with the new scheme, the Provincial authorities trusting to the Ministerial promise that tbe main feature of that scheme was to-be the construction of a main trunk line through the island. The result of this "putting our trust in Ministers iB now only too well known. By ita willingness to consult the interests of the colony Nelson came to grief. Is it to be wondered at if the Nelson people should feel sore and disgusted at the treatment they have received at the hands of the colony? Deprived of a railway which would have been the making of the" place, they are abused for j perpetually crying out against the injustice from which they are now suffering, and they, who are really the injured ones, are held up to scorn, and are subjected to the lashings of the whip which is plied so vigorously by that great moral censor the Christchurch Press. Of our contemporary's views upon political morality generally, however, we fortunately gain a little more knowledge as we read on. He is of opinion, so at least

we gather from certain expressions used, and from the tone of the article generally, that, while it'is excessively wrong on the part of the people of Nelson to oppose a Government wbich declines to carry out the intentions of the founders of the public works policy, it is pardonable, if not praiseworthy, oa the part ot a Ministry to lie deliberately and profusely to the representatives of a Nelson constituency. No less than four times in the course of the article before us it is stated, and that without a word of blame being attached to theta, that Ministers soleriinly promised the Nelson members that the railway s hould be proceeded with, all the time fully intending to break their word whenever it suited them to do so. The I'rcss shall give its own evidence of the way in which Nelson has been treated. The italics are our own j — "Having courted corruption,*' (be it remembered that Nelson never asked more than was promised to it) " Nehon was unhesitatingly deceived. It got its price at the time, partly in cash and partly in promises, which were never meant to be hept." " It was not so much the mere expenditure winch Nelson demauded that the Ministry o_ that day objected to. It was the dangerous precedent of successful blackmailing that they dreaded; and, in order to make that precedent as little dangerous an possible, they broke their promises to Nelsoi as soon as they could afford to dispense with the Nelscn vote." " Again and again tbo Nelson vote was bought and sold though Nelson really gained little from the transaction beyond a fresh crop of promises, that were notoriously made but to be broken." "Mr Macandrew, indeed, promised them all they asked for, but we need hardly say that he bilked them ruthlessly A' And the journal which in this pleasant and chirpy style relates how successive Governments of the colony deliberately told lie after lie to a certain section of the House of Representatives, and in one instance positively invents an excuse for their conduct, chooses to set itself up as a censor morum, and talks, half in pity and half in condemnation, of what it ia pleased to call Nelson's "easy virtue in politics." Apart from the actual merits of the case, which those who are supporters of the railway are not afraid to argue, as this article alleges, we would ask has not the Press made out au excellent case for Nelson? In. 1870, in 1874, and in 1878, the Government, we are told, solemnly promised the Nelson members that they should have that for which they asked 1 And when we demand that these promises shall be fulfilled we are assailed with abuse, while those who have deliberately deceived ns are held to be perfectly blameless, and, indeed, are rather patted on the back for haying done a clever thing. Our contemporary not only scolds the people of Nelson but sneers at the local press and laments its deterioration since the days of the old NeUon Examiner, which is certainly a high standard to Bet up and one that it is given to very few papers in tbe colony to reach. There is, however, an old maxim which our Canterbury critic cannot afford to lose sight of. Ifcruna thus: — "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. "' We, too, have memories that carry us back some years, and when we compare the Press aa |it existed in the old days under the editorship of the present Controller of the Revenue with the Press of the present day .we may be pardoned if, with a feeling of deep regret that such a change should have taken place, we exclaim, " Oh ! what a falling off is here."