Mr. McDonald’s Meeting1.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 983, 1 October 1881, Page 2 (Supplement)

Mr. McDonald’s Meeting 1 .

Ms. McDonald, in pursuance of promise, addressed the electors of Gisborne, in McFarlane’s Hall, on Thursday evening last. The hall was filled in every part, and Mr. Carlaw Smith was voted to the chair, who, after a few remarks, introduced Mr. McDonald to the meeting. Mr. McDonald, on rising, was received with much applause, and said he agreed with the Chairman, and would refer to his remarks further on. He thought but little was to be shewn as the result of the past Session. Mr. McDonald commenced with the Licensing Bill, and dwelt at length on the action of the Good Templars, headed by Sir W. Fox. He thought it was a good Bill, but the Good Templars would not have it. As to the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, he thought it pressed hard on the poorer candidates. He did not think the Bill was a good one. With egard to the measures he tried to pass was, first, the High School Bill. Mr. Rolleston pledged himself to support the Bill, and then dropped it. With regard to the Harbor Board Bill, he would draw attention to the proposals of the Govafnment in giving land to construct railwavs, and the Railways Construction Bill was carried the day before the Harbor Board Bill was thrown out —a Bill which gave 30 per cent, of endowment. With regard to the Rivers Bill he thought he was entrapped by a party who had held a meeting at Makaraka, and accused him of certain things behind his back. As to the Representation Bill he was a true supporter of t'hat Bill. He did not vote for Barron’s amendment, as was stated in the Herald. He thought it was a good Bill for the district, but a bad one for the North Island. Mr. McDonald said he could not understand on what basis the principle of representation was made. Then as to the Land District Bill, he got a return of the lands sold in the district, which showed that only 60,000 acres had been sold in' the district in about 10 years, and 40,000 acres of that were sold to one man —Mr. Vesey Stewart. That will show what good the Auckland Waste Lands Board is -doing for the East Coast. Mr. Rolleston brought in a Bill to tack us on to Hawke’s Bay, which he, Mr. McDonald, opposed. If that were the case the Homestead System would be abolished, as there is nothing of the kind in the Hawke’s Bay regulations. He tried to get the Waihau Block put up for sale under the Homestead Act, which Mr Rolleston refused. He had been accused of voting against the Crown and Native Land Rating Bill, but he had not done so. (Cries of Oh 1 Oh !)

Mr. Dickson said he wanted'to know “ What did Mac say ” ? and ascended the platform, but the meeting refused to hear him, amid cries of chair, chair.

Mr. McDonald resumed : He was going on to say that Major Atkinson wandered away from the Bill ; and he, then, in turn wandered away from his subject by entering on a long description of the forms of the House on the second reading of Bills. Mr. McDonald said : If he did vote against the Bill there was nothing in it. If Europeans lease lands from the Natives they have to pay the'tax. The Government refused the County Council’s valuation, but required then* own valuation. He found that members who opposed the Bill had similar proposals of their own. Sir G. Grey was one of them. He, Mr. McDonald telegraphed to the present Chairman (Mr Smith) to the effect that he believed the Government would not carry on the Bill, as they played into the hands of the goody goody people. As to his desertion of his party Sir G. Grey stuck to him till 3 o’clock in the morning, and carried ' the Bill with a m'ajority of 11, in spite of the opposition of the Government. He supported the Property Tax Act, but he was sorry for it, as it is not a good measure, and he concluded this from the Treasurer’s own statement. Sir G. Grey was right and we were wrong. Mr. McDonald said Mr. Rolleston had voted against the two schedules of the Harbour Board Bill. He was sorrv to see the action of the local Councils. He thought the two Councils should have given him information as to the wants of the district but he was surprised to find in a communication they sent to him, that nothing was said upon any local subject except outlying roads.

Mr. McDonald thought itwaswrong to try to damage a member behind his bank, and he was glad to see that his friend Mr. Webb [this is sarkasm] had taken his part during his absence. He got the papers in Wellington, and was pleased with Mr. Webb’s remarks. Whatever the result of the election might be, he would stick to the place, and do the best he could for it ; and he thought, a sitting member should be allowed to address the electors first, before new candidates addressed meetings, with the object of unseating him.

There is one way in which a Harbor Board can be got and that is for the Government to put a sum on the Estimates, and grant a block of land, and then the Upper House cannot throw it out. He had been assured that, in consequence of the depressed times hundreds of working men were leaving the Colony, and a harbor at Gisborne would have been a boon to the place. He voted with Mr Ormond’s Amendment, although bethought him a dangerous man, for he would go back to Provincialism the first opportunity, and provincialism, in Mr. McDonald’s opinion, was not suited to the times.

Mr. McDonald said he had got about £20,000 put on the Estimates for this district. If the “ continuous Government ” did so much for the district, why did they not do it before he got into the House ? With regard to the coming election, he would do

his best to get a Waste Land Board, and would fight the election on fair grounds. He thought the letters that appeared in the local papers did more harm than good. They did him no harm, but the district much. He said he had heard that Mr. Graham, the Chairman of the Cook County Council, sent a telegram to the Chairman of the Wairoa County Council, stating that the Cook County Council were against Mr. McDonald, and hoped the Wairoa County Council would be also.

Mr. Graham denied this from his seat in the Hall.

Mr. McDonald deprecated the system of allowing the member to go to the House without conferring with him, and as soon as he has taken action, to call his motives in question. He had acted for the best for the district and for the Colony, and had fought hard in the interests of the electors. He thanked the meeting for listening to him, and hoped it would not be the last time they would hear him.

[We have endeavored to “lick ” the foregoing into shape, and make it as readable as we can out of such material. We cast no reflection on Mr. McDonald’s want of the power of addressing a meeting in a more flowing way, than is his custom ; but the peculiar habit he has of jumping from one subject to another, and harking back to the same subject, so often—together with a painful disconnection of both idea and expression—render it most difficult for reporters to follow him intelligently.—Ed. Mr. R. Cooper asked Mr. McDonald on which side he voted on the second reading of the Crown and Native Land Rating Bill.

Mr. McDonald said he did not vote against the Bill—there was no division on the second reading. The Chairman, at Mr. Cooper’s request, read from Mr. McDonald’s speech on the second reading of the Bill, and also from that made by Mr. Reader Wood as follow : —■ The Bill of the honorable member for the Thames is not.before the House. That is not in issue here. The second reading of that Bill is some days distant on the Order Paper. Let us see what the question is : —“ Crown and Native Lands Rating Bill.—Motion made, and question proposed, that the Bill be now read a second time. —(Hon. Major Atkinson.) “ Amendment proposed, to omit all the words of the question after ‘ That,’ and to insert ‘ the proposals of the Government in respect to local government and local finance are unsatisfactory,’ in lieu thereof.—(Mr. Ormond.” That is the question before the House and no other question. I adhere simply and distinctly to that question, and I advise the House to do the same. I object altogether to the Government party attempting to draw a red herring across the scent, and importing anything else into this debate except the question which you, Sir, have enunciated from that chair. The Chairman : A division took place on that amendment, and Mr. McDonald’s name appeared amongst the “ noes.” Mr. McDonald explained that the question of the general policy of the Government was before the "House, and he voted for the amendment, and not against the second reading of the Bill. Mr. Cooper wanted to know where Mr. McDonald got his information from with regard to his statement in

the House, on the Local Practitioners’ Bill, of a case that happened in Mr. Smith’s office at Dunedin, where a. young man, the son of the Registrar of the Supreme Court, was trying to pass his examination, but had to leave on account of the actions of his father. Mr. McDonald was understood to say that if any party was aggrieved at what he had said, on that subject, he had his remedy. Mr. Graham said with regard to the statements made by Mr. McDonald as to him, the speaker, having used his influence as Cook County Chairman, to damage our member, he had studiously avoided doing anything, except in his position as a private person. The Chairman explained how it was that Mr. Graham had signed the notice, convening the Makaraka meeting, in his public capacity, and then disclaiming it at the meeting itself, as Chairman.

Mp. Graham repudiated Mr. McDonald’s assertion that he had sent to the Wairoa Council, a telegram as previously stated. With regard to the Harbor Bill, all he could say was that the plans and estimates he had before him were prepared by Mr. Davies (of the firm of Connor and Davies), contractors for the Taruheru bridge. After repeated calls for Mr. Davies, that gentleman ascended the platform, and acknowledged, amid great cheering, that he made the estimates alluded to, and was prepared to stand by them. His plan shows that the breakwater will extend to 2100 feet — the exreme section, about 700 feet in length, would be five feet broader than that provided for by Sir John Coode.

Mr. Davies explained that he had been invited to inspect the harbour, with a view to making a breakwater, or harbour, in Poverty Bay. The first proposition made to him was to confine the cost of a breakwater to about £30,000; but the lowest estimate he could make for a suitable work was a little under £50,000. The condition of the payment was land, as no money was obtainable. With this he was perfectly satisfied, as, if the work was completed, property in the Bay would rise 200 or 300 per cent, in two hr three years. He said his estimate did not include the construction of the railway, or reclamation ; his plan and estimate were confined to the construction of a breakwater 2,100 feet in length, and a wharf 600 feet in length, running at right angles, about 1,750 feet from the shore end. These would provide accommodation for at least half-a-dozen vessels drawing 24 feet, to say nothing of a large number of vessels and steamers like the Southern Cross and Kiwi, taking shallower water, but too large to enter the present river. Mr. Davies further stated that if any person doubted his firm’s ability to carry out the work, they were prepared to put down a deposit as a guarantee, and to start the work within a week.

Mr. McDonald said, in reply to a question, that if his Bill had passed, Mr. Davies would have taken the Tauwhareparae block as security only ; he could not sell it. Mr. McLean said that endowments could not be pledged as security. Mr. McDonald said that the papers had stated he did not get any money for the district. He did not take the whole of the credit himself for the £20,000 voted for the district.

Mr. Graham said he had seen a letter from the Premier, before Mr. McDonald left for the House, stating that the sums, as they ultimately appeared,. would be placed on the Estimates ; and that it was not due to Mr. McDonald that the district has these sums voted for it: Mr. Gannon asked if Mr. McDonald distinctly denies voting against the Crown and Native Land Rating Bill. Mr. McDonald said Mr. Gannon either wanted to blind his, Mr. McDonald’s, supporters, or he did not understand the question. Mr. Gannon said Mr. McDonald’s supporters were too blind already—a remark which caused much uproar and commotion. Mr. Gannon : Did you vote against the Crown and Native Land Rating Bill because the lessees would have to pay the rates ? Mr. McDonald said he did not vote against the second or the first reading of the Bill, but for Mr. Ormond’s amendment. He voted for that amendment to turn out the Government. Mr. Gannon : If Mr. Ormond is a dangerous man, as you say, and would return to provincialism, why did you vote to put him in power ? Mr. McDonald denied having said Mr. Ormond would return to provincialism. He voted with him on his

amendment, but thought he wanted looking after. Mr. Gannon then kept up a running fire of questions, amid great noise, and cries of “ question.” Mr. Gannon’s object appeared to be to elicit from the Member an explanation of his past policy, and defection first from one Government and then from another, succeeding, ultimately, in running his man into a corner. Through the noise, Mr. McDonald was understood to say that, although he was elected to support Sir George Grey, he considered it was necessary to vote with the Hall Government, and put them in office, but he did not think he was a “ rat ”on that account. He could not say he supported any Government in particular; he stuck to his party whatever Government w T as in power. He only supported the Hall Government on one or two local questions. True, as Mr. Gannon said, he had voted with successive Governments, and was not yet in with any of them, but he repeated that he voted against them less with the object of turning them out, than to support his party. He said he was dead ■against the present Government as they stand. He did not know that the policy of the present Government was to open up the Waste Lands in this district, as the Land Boards had control of the Waste Lands, and the Government could not administer them.

Mr. McLean asked why Mr. McDonald has such a down on teetotallers.

Mr. McDonald denied having said so.

Mr. McLean : Why have you not touched on the question “ The land for the people ” ? Mr. McDonald said he had advocated County Councils having control of the Waste Lands. Mr. Tucker : “ Do you approve of any interference by the Government with the police in the performance of their duty ” ? This is a question that affects the whole of us. Reports had been made by the police to the Government, and the hands of the police were tied on account of departmental interference. Mr. McDonald replied that he did not approve of such interference, and thought the control of the police ought to be given to the local bodies. In reply to Mr. J. Somervell, Mr. McDonald said he did not approve of the present constitution of the Legislative Council. He thought the members should be elected. In reply to questions Mr. McDonald said he was in favor of an elected Governor ; but with regard to the federation of the Australian Colonies, he had not studied the matter and could not reply. Mr. McDonald, stated, with great judiciousness, that the question asked was too broad and important to be answered without deep consideration, and must decline saying anything further on the subject. In reply to another question Mr. McDonald said he would support the Hall Government or any other that did justice to the district. Mr. Rees moved “ that the electors of the East Coast have every confidence in the past career of Mr. McDonald, and intend to support him in his future candidature.” Mr. Rees proceeded to address the meeting at length, in review of some of the business of the evening, a privilege studiously refused to all previous speakers. In the course of his remarks, Mr. Rees spoke of those who differed from Mr. McDonald, in the most offensive manner. He said they were “ things,” “ miserable people ” “ wretched beings,” and so on ; and with regard to the Rivers Bill he drew it in his office, and the alterations made in it were made by Mr. Graham and the County Council. This Mr. Graham emphatically denied.

Mr. D. McKay: It is quite correct that they did so. This led to a squabble between Mr. Graham and Mr. Rees, on the subject of personal veracity, each charging the other, impliedly, with stating what was incorrect. Ultimately Mr. De Lautour threw a little acceptable oil on the troubled waters by explaining how it was possible the misunderstanding arose, and after the principals accused each other of “ backing out of his statements, this most unseemly and unwarrantable introduction of foreign matter was allowed to drop. Mr. 8. Stevenson seconded Mr. Rees s motion, which, on being put from the chair, was carried unanimously. A vote of thanks to the chairman ended the proceedings.