New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, DECEMBER 21.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4603, 21 December 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, DECEMBER 21.

As a politician, Mr. Travees belongs essentially to that class the members of xvhich should have good memories. In his blusterous self-assertion, bis rude contradictious, and his utterly egotistical utterances, he should remember well what he may have said’ previously. Failing to do this, he lays himself open to the shameful exposure which we are compelled to give him, On the hustings yesterday he committed himself in a mariner, as we shall presently show, altogether in keeping with the impudent audacity of a man who is ready to say anything in order to obtain a momentary triumph. Mr. Pearce, who possesses no front of brass and no power of using words to conceal intentions, conferred by forensic practice, like a simple common sense man, placed the issue of the present contest fairly before the electors, when he said that .“at the last “ general election the contest lay between “ the supporters of the policy of the “ Government of the day and the oppo- “ nents of that policy.” To this Mr. Teaveks, with the effrontery customary to him, cried “No.” Mr. Pearce continued : ‘ ! Mr. Hunter and himself had “ emphatically declared in favor of immi- “ gration and public works. Mr. Rich- “ mond and Mr. Travees represented “ the Opposition.” To this again Mr. Travees cried “ No.” And Mr. Travers cried both these “Noes” with the air of a man whose sense of self-honesty was conspicuous, whose hatred of false accusations was intense. Now, it unfortunately happens that during the last great electoral contest in this city, when the recent representatives beat Messrs. Richmond and Travers, the speeches of all the candidates were very fully reported in the local Press, so that we are in possession of the actual words used then by Mr. 1 Travees. And we have no hesitation in saying that a reproduction of those words will prove that Mr. Travers, when he so loudly called out his “Noes,” was simply asserting that which was not the fact. We are quite willing to assume that Mr. Travers’ very grave mistake was made unwittingly, that it occurred rather through a defective memory than through any intentional desire to mislead, but that cannot prevent our pointing out that, intentionally or unintentionally, a very grave mistake indeed was made. For, turning to the files of the Wellington Independent during the contest of 1871, we find Mr. Travers reported as having said in the Odd Fellows’ Hall, on January the 17th, in reference to the then Government and their public works and •, immigration policy He could tell them another “ thing : he was opposed to the present “ Government —opposed to every mem- “ her of it. They had been dragging a ‘ ‘ golden cloud before the eyes of the • “ people of the colony, but their policy “was a delusion, and contrary to all “ known practical theories of sound poli- “ tical economy, and was likely to heap “up burdens under which the colony “ would not be able to stagger.” If Mr. Travers after reading this does not feel with Sir Harry, in the play, that he has only opened his mouth to put his foot in it, why his want of perspicacity can only be accounted for by our knowledge that he is W. T. L. Travers, a man reckless of what he says so long as he gains a momentary fancied triumph, and en veloped in a moral atmosphere of self conceit that prevents his seeing how miserable a trickster in the game of politics ho really is. But it may be said, and no doubt it will be said by Mr. Travees and those who model their journalistic appeals in his favor on his own practice in speaking, that the report in the Wellington Independent, from which we quote, is a biassed and unfair one, and that we should turn to those immaculate pages where Mr. Travers finds honor, and in which justice is done him. We are quite content to do so. Some of our readers may be aware that in 1871 there was published in Wellington a journal called the Evening Post, which was distinguished at the time for its completely unprincipled support of Messrs. Richmond and Travers, and the insolent braggadocio with which it then presaged their success, and was, as the event showed, altogether

mistaken. In the issue of this paper for January *!, 1871, we find Mr., Travers reported as having said to a large meeting of electors :—“ ETe Kvas only in, favor “ of immigration to the extent to which “it promoted the colonisation of the “ country. He believed that there was “ now in the colony more than enough 1 ‘ labor to carry out all the works which “ could he undertaken with our present “ means.” bo far for immigration. As to public works, we find in tho same report, Mr. Travers, saying:—"lt would “ not do to force either immigration or “public works,, for forced plants were “ always unhealthy. He opposed the “ Government scheme because it was “ essentially a forcing scheme, and there “ was an entire absence of all safeguards “ in regard to the expenditure contem- “ plated.” These things require no comment, they-speak for themselves, but we might, without in any way being verbose, ask if the colony in general, and Wellington in particular, would have been at their present stage of prosperity if Mr. Travers’ views as to immigration and public works ; had been carried out 1 We might point out to Mr. Travers, whilst agreeing with his indiscreet advocate yesterday that he is prepared to support anything !that may secure him votes. He most cer;tainly, judged by the . experience of the past five years, did not support that which was most conducive to the interests of Wellington. He did, indeed, at some time of his political career, get a vote in aid of some botanical collections, and he had something to do with promoting a gas company. But plants with long Latin names arc scarcely as useful to the people as are plenty of good cabbages, and the gasworks are a benefit to the shareholders, so that in each case we 'fail to see the boundless, philanthropy, tile zeal for the poor man, and the cosmopolitan love for all mankind which Mr. Travers, himself assures us are his distinguishing features. We have no desire to write unfairly of Mr. Travers. Wo are content to judge him by his own words and his own acts. In the impudence of his self-praise ho is a Pecksniff amongst politicians, in the insolence of his selfassertion he is as sounding brass and as a ■tinkling cymbal. The show of hands yesterday might have taught him this much. Where was yesterday the crowd of nonelectors, that five years ago gave a show of hands nearly four times as great as that given to Messrs. Pearce and Hunter? He and his partizans could only get together sufficient of them to give him a narrow majority. If the experience of the past be any guide to the future, he will come forth from the ordeal of the ballot in a far more ignoble position than that which he occupied in 1871, when the hustings assembly was all in his favor, and the ballot sufficiently against him. We have to congratulate the electors of the city who, in response to our article yesterday, turned out to support Messrs. Pearce and Hunter, and unmistakeahly showed Mr. Travers that even with those who held up their hands under the influence of a sudden appeal, the days of his power were gone.