PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY & SATURDAY. SATURDAY, AUGUST 13, 1881.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 969, 13 August 1881, Page 2

PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY & SATURDAY. SATURDAY, AUGUST 13, 1881.

Beating the air, as some people do, was comparatively profitable employment to the waste of time occasioned at the meeting held at Makaraka on Thursday night. What the real object of its promoters was, was not made so apparent as to warrant anything more than suspicion that an underlying motive was the cause. In fact Captain Porter said plainly that the report of the meeting being “ a political dodge ” received a measure of endorsement, or coloring, from the tendency of the remarks of the speakers. They appeared to aim more as a condemnation of Mr. McDonald, or a hostile animadversion of his conduct, than a pure and simple consideration of the Bills before the House, affecting this district. And it is not at all to be wondered at that Mr. Graham felt himself in a fix, left in the lurch in fact by those who had pressed the necessity for the meeting upon him, and made him the pliant scapegoat for their own purposes. They belong to that numerous clas—the bate noirs of newspaper offices — who are ever moulding the bullets for others to fire. We are somewhat estranged from Mr. McDonald, since he has proved himself so thoroughly deficient in both honesty of purpose, and fixity of principle. But we quite agree with those who put themselves into the breach, and held the speakers solely to the axiom “ measures not men.” It was unfair, they said, to condemn our representative in his absence; but they might have added that there was a still larger element of unfairness in taking advantage of side issues in order to censure a man by stealth. We consider it was quite competent to discuss Mr. McDonald’s action in regard to the Bills, without, in any way, taking advantage of hjs absence, or darting shafts at him from all sides, as more than one speaker said was being done. But the prime difficulty seems to be, in matters of this kind, how to dissociate the actor’s name from the piece in which he is acting. Therefore, it seemed to be somewhat unreasonable to ask the meeting to discuss the measures without alluding to the member who had been, and is, connected with their progress.; or, as one speaker said, to play Hamlet without the Ghost. The compliment may have been equivocal, but the remark was expressive. To our mind it would have been far more judicious and open handed, had the objects of the meeting been more clearly defined, and to have rendered its real intention less susceptible of ambiguity. Had the promoters said that, as our member had acted in contravention of the interests of his constituents, and, as the only way to reach him was through the channel of a public meeting, it was desirable to consider our relative position, and frame resolutions, expressive of public opinion here, for his future guidance, discussion would hav.e been less fettered, and the suspicion of stabbing in the dark would have been avoided.

But the question may fairly be asked, “ Wliat possible good can result from such a meeting, held under such circumstances, and at so late a period of the session ? ” The opinion that the result of Thursday night’s resolutions will be, simply, nil, was shared by a number at the meeting, which, to some extent, accounts for the speakers being confined to some half-dozen gentlemen. Mr. Poynter pointed out the absurdity of the several clauses of the three Bills being discussed piecemeal, at a public meeting; but he did not improve matters by relegating the subject to a Committee of five, who could not, possibly, give it sufficient attention to enable them to forward the result of their deliberations by last night’s mail. And what if they could? Are we so green in the ways of politics, as to think we can hide from the Government the fact that the meeting, composed of about 50 persons, was held in a small bucolic, out-lying township, and, in no way represented public opinion ? Are we so ignorant of the principle of Government by majority as to believe that the Ministry are likely to alter any of their fundamentals—any of their bases of legislation—to suit the whims and caprices of a few assembled at at a hole and corner meeting ? Again, is it likely that the resolutions

will have the same effect, as if they, or similar ones had been passed earlier? The Bills have been before the public for some weeks, and whatever was to be urged against them, should have been urged long before. The resolution with regard to the subdivision of Native lands, was the only reasonable one passed at the meeting. It sets forth clearly, and reasonably what is absolutely essential to the disentanglement of our chief Native difficulty, and while it merely suggests the introduction of a clause in consonance with its object, does not. aim at a re-construction or alteration of the Bill. The resolution referring to the Rating Act, is, as we have said, so utterly absurd as to be a wanton waste of time to ask people to listen to its details ; while the last one in regard to the Representation Bill was simply supererogatory. The Government have already most emphatically declared their intention not to assent to a lessening of the number of member provided for in their Bill, and it is understood the division of the present East Coast electorate forms part of that Bill ; and when it is considered that Mr. McDonald voted against Mr. Barron’s amendment for a non-augmention of members, we can claim fealty from him to the cause which gives separate Members for Poverty Bay and Tauranga. In this, and other matters which occupied the attention of the meeting for about three hours on Thursday night, the air was beaten most effectually, and from which no possible good can come.