MR. STEWARD AND COUNTRY REPRESENTATION.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1048, 29 August 1879, Page 2

MR. STEWARD AND COUNTRY REPRESENTATION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE OAMARU MAIL. Sir, —I have waited patiently for some days in the hope that Mr. Steward would reply to my letter upon the above subject, but he either does not feel inclined to pursue the correspondence further, or ho finds the statements I made unanswerable. I should not, perhaps, have pursued tho controversy further had not Mr. Steward, according to a paragraph in last evening's Mail, given a third, and more startling, explanation of the reasons which actuated him when, in 1875, he voted against tho division of the district, and the granting of separate representation to the country. He has indulged in an amount of shuffling upon this matter scarcely befitting one who seeks to become a representative. Each of the three explanations given are widely different, but each of them were, I am compelled to believe, framed specially to captivate those for whose ears they were intended. Thus, when speaking to the electors of Oamaru after tho session of 1875, he said that his reason for voting as he did was that "ho believed it would be better that they should have two members who would look upon one another as colleagues in all matters, and could work together for the district as a whole, rather than that they should have one looking upon himself as bound to look to the interests of the town and the other to the interests of the country." This is the explanation he gave to the people of Oamaru. Now, what did ho say in answer to my letter when I first accused him of preventing the country from receiving separate representation? To quote his own words, the reason attributed for his action was as follows : " I believed then, and I believe now, that had I not accepted the proposal as brought down by the Government, and suffered an amendment proposed to be carried, I should have run the risk of losing tho i additional member altogether. The amendment was suggested in this form, viz.,' to strike out the words " Waitaki one (additional) member," ' with a view to inserting certain other words giving a member to the country. As the Thames and Auckland were fighting for more representation, the risk was that if the words proposed to be omitted, ' Waitaki one member,' were struck out, the words proposed to be substituted might not be carried, and the effect might have been to give another seat to another part of the Colony. I therefore preferred, in the interests of my constituency, to stand by the text of the Bill, and thus secure the additional * representation proposed, and which was! -accordingly secured." .This is the ex- i plansiion given by Mr. Steward last Saturday in a letter published in your columns. The correctness of it has been challenged not only by myself but by other correspondents, whose letters have not yet been replied to. Most people would have thought that in writing out for publication so elaborate and clear an explanation Mr. Steward would have looked upon tho point as settled. Not so, however. Some rather rough handling at Papakaio by Mr. Borrie upon the question evidently convinced Mr. Steward that his reply had not had the desired effect, and consequently, when addressing the electors at Pukeuri Point the next night he bethought himself of another and, to them, more " taking " explanation. He then said, according to your report, that four years ago Kakanui, as a port, and Oamaru were in opposition, and as the extra member was intended for the south, he opposed the division of the district. This is what, in substance, he told the electors in the northern part of the electorate. Now, what I should like to know is : What explanation will he give the people down south. Will he tell the electors at the southern end of the district that he opposed the proposal because the member would have been given to the north 1 This is the only explanation that can now be expected from him, although it is just possible that Mr. Steward may again surprise the district by originating other explanations. Here are three explanations of the reasons which prompted the giving of a vote in a certain way upon an important matter only four years since, all widely different in their nature. Truly Mr. Steward must be cursed with a very treacherous memory. But not only is ho to be pitied for the infliction of a defective memory ; his opinions are also of a changeful nature. In 1875 I find him stating that if he were again a member for the district he would prefer the electorate remaining intact, "as it would be the best for the district." Ordinary persons like myself would thinfc that this expression of opinion was suffix ciently plain, and that being, aa Mr, Steward then argued, well grounded, it would prove of a lasting nature. Bui here they would be mistaken. Mr, Steward is by no means an ordinary man; in fact, he is rather an extraordinary man, and he consequently deems it his especial privilege to pipe the tune that is best calculated to meet the requirements of the case. Thus he was quite justified in changing his opinion with reference to tho expediency of dividing the district, and writing as follows on Saturday, when starting on an electioneering tour through the country districts:—"l think it desirable at the first opportunity to obtain Jj tho allocation of one member to the towh I cliU' one to the County, and this, if once/ mo; 3 ftle- id to the House, I shall endeavor to secure." Unpleasant as it may be to say so, I must candidly confess that if all Mr. Steward's utterances, promises, and professions are to be judged in thfl light of the matter I have referred to, hi' exceedingly liberal platform cannot carry any very great weight with it. If th» country member question can be accepted as affording any criterion of the earnest* ness of the third candidate for Waitaki in regard to his manifold promises, they must partake to an eminent degree of the nature of pie-crusts, and will not prove of a very lasting description.—l am, &c. Country Eiectob.