Mr Hutchison or the Major?

Patea Mail, 5 December 1881, Page 2

Mr Hutchison or the Major?

It is time to say a few plain words on Mr Hutchison’s claims as compared with those of Major Atkinson. Electors will be asked to poll next Friday, and the contest in Egmont is among the most important and most critical in the colony. The two candidates have been heard at ample length, and they have freely contradicted each other on matters of opinion and on matters of fact. Conclusions may now be fairly drawn.

Mr Hutchison has had the fullest fair-play in the Mail. His speeches have been amply and faithfully reported, without a tinge of favor. In fact he has had neither more nor less than has been given to his rival. Haring now made his case, the electors have all the materials for a judgment. Comments of an editorial nature have been tender and few; so that no undue prejudice has been raised against him. This silence may have encouraged a belief that the Mail, with its known independence, might support his candidature when it came to the push. Why should it do so ? The Mail has continued to criticise Major Atkinson with the same freedom as before; but the Mail said at the first, what it repeats at the last, that though there is much fault to find with the Major, there is no sufficient reason for preferring a candidate from Wanganui to displace Major Atkinson. It is healthy to let politicians know that there are newspapers which cannot be turned about to suit personal desires. We try to understand and express the opinion of the great majority in this district. We believe the majority are convinced, on all the facts before them, that it is not desirable to throw over Major Atkinson for a new man who is untried, who would have no power in the House, and who is identified with this district only as an absentee owner living amid other and rival interests at Wanganui. The case was put in this way by the Mail on the sth October, when the election campaign was opening :—“lt will not mend our position to be represented from Wanganui. No; none of that. We want a member to be identified in a genuine manner with our district interests.” We also said then, as we say now, that if a good local candidate, acceptable to the whole district, had been forthcoming, the Mail would have fought hard for him against both the others. It had also been stated, and was clearly understood, that this journal would have opposed Mr Sherwood if he had stood against Major Atkinson. The reasons against Mr Hutchison are stronger, because he has been up to the present in no way identified with public affairs in Egmont district. He owns property here as a speculator, and that is all. Suppose Mr Hutchison were returned for Egmont, what would follow ? He would be a new member of the Opposition ; for it is practically certain that Major Atkinson would be returned for some other district, and would be a member of the next Cabinet, while it is equally certain Mr Hutchison would not. If Mr Hutchison proposed some endowment or other advantage for this district, we could hardly expect the Major (as a Minister) to assist his rival in getting for Egmont what the Major had previously failed to get. Another objection is that Mr Hutchison would be always under a suspicion of favoring Wanganui. On this low ground of self-interest, we should be in the position of the man who cut off his nose to spite his face. The Major would be able if he chose to quietly sit on all Mr Hutchison’s local proposals. Politicians do these things, whether they are proper or not; and the electors should base their decision, not on hope or sentiment, but on hard fact. Mr Hutchison says he believes it very likely that he can get an endowment for Opunaki harbor; and he says he will try to get one for Patea. The chances; are woefully against him. Our opinion is that no endowment will be got for either harbor until the Upper House is made elective, and until the besom of

reform has swept out the incompetent old fogies who have made their “ pile,” and now sleep on it. The only present chance is in adroitly using and developing present harbor resources. Hence the hopefulness with which the local public look forward to Mr Sherwood’s return to the Patea Harbor Board. His practical ingenuity is more to us than Mr Hutchison’s promises.

Major Atkinson’s claims hardly need canvassing. He has been opposed sufficiently to make him more attentive, and we hope more zealous, in his duty to the many urgent claims of this new, hardly opened, but splendid district. He has power and opportunity to do much ; but being a Minister, he must do his local work in a quiet way. Having criticised him sharply in the past, and sometimes more than subsequent knowledge warranted us in doing, we can now say with sincerity that the district will lose by turning him out, and cannot possibly gain by displacing him for a candidate who would be only a member of a powerless opposition.