PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. Thursday, December 1, 1881.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 1006, 1 December 1881, Page 2

PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. Thursday, December 1, 1881.

Mb. W. L. Rees was good enough to state, at his meeting on the subject of the Native Land Settlement Company, last Friday evening, that one of the .principal causes of the comparative failure of the Company, was due to the scurrilous attacks made upon'it by the local Press. From time to time, Mr - Rees said, articles had appeared, and circulated down south, and in other parts of the Colony, greatly to the injury of the Company’s prospects. It is a pity Mr. -Rees did not state which portion of the local Press he -alluded to —which journal, of the two in •Gisborne, was the delinquent. The shoe did not pinch us, therefore, we did not '■wince under the pedal infliction. But, 'considering what the Standard has done for Mr. Rees since he first set foot in Gisborne, it would have been but scant justice for him to acknowledge the obligation he and his party are under to this journal for the position they once attained to, but from which they have allowed themselves to ■Be deposed. ■lt may, probably, have occurred to >our readers, both at borne and abroad, that the Standard has altered its -opinion of Mr. Rees ; and that the advocacy it onceloyally supported him with, has been withdrawn. So is it, in “the operation of mundane affairs, that the friend of to-day, may be the enemy ■■ofto-morrow; andthecolors, which, but were nailed to the mast with a ringing cheer of triumph, are compelled to be strick at last —not in token of defeat, but as a sign that the battle you have fought, valiantly, but in vain, has been one of misplaced confidence. When Mr. Rees first came to Poverty Bay he was covered with the malodorous sanctity of Repudiation ; and it will be in the recollection of our readers of that day that we opposed the introduction, by him, in this district, of doctrines which had poisoned the minds of the Natives, and Rad raised up an army of enemies =against him, in Hawke’s Bay. An -action for libel was talked of, though ■not "by Mr. Rees ; and fearful consequences —“by the side of which, Mother Shipton’s prophecies were playthings —were to ensue. Still we kept t he even tenerof'our way, until one of those accidents —the outcome of mind meeting mind—occurred, which caused us to alter the opinion we had formed of Mr. Rees. Mr. Rees gave us distinctly to understand—and we have no reason to believe he has departed from his -word—that Repudiation was not his object, but justice to the Natives; that the circumstances of this district were different to those of Hawke’s Bay ; that the material he had to work with here was of a different texture, and ithat, consequently, the means employed would be dissimilar, and the result quite the reverse. Feeling satisfied that the theoretical picture in Mr. Rees’ mind could be transferred to the canvas of real life ; and being imbued with a desire to make a dash, and cast off the dross and green mould that sluggishness had accumulated on the wheels of the people’s chariot, we ■consented to throw our lot in with Mr. Rees, and give him a trial; but on the distinct {understanding that the doctrine of Repudiation was to form no portion of the decalogue of the future. So long as we saw in Mr. Rees, even a

desire to promote the welfare of the district, -we supported him. We consented to give hiin'fair J>lay against all coiners—to remain his firm friend, so long as he deserved it, and if he failed he was to accept the consequences. We need not retrace much of the past to prove that Mr. Rees has failed his own actions, or want of action, condemn him but too surely. AVe have kept our promise, to our own hurt and injury, and he has most unmistakably not kept his word. For years this journal has stood valiantly, and almost single handed, against many odds, by the side..of Mr. Rees. We. have espoused his cause, when hardly another could be found to speak patiently of him, except those in his I place of profit or pay. We have stood I our ground in the face of warnings’ from without, and admonitions from within ; but as we had put our hand to the plough we determined not to look back. Our political friends deserted us, and those in ordinary business relations with us fell away, actuated, we suppose, by a desire not to support a journal who espoused the cause of a man whom most persons regarded as one •of the greatest enemies of our time and race. Still we swerved not; not. so much, at last, because our faith in Mr. Rees was unshaken—although we kept it loyally to ourselves —but, because we thought his enemies did not fight him fairly, and anything in the shape of unfairness we abhor. There are bounds to mortal endurance ; and our powers in that direction, have given way, in these latter days, when we behold the crumbling ruins of ■what, under more skilful hands, might have been a majestic Temple, lying at our feet. Those opposed to Mr. Rees afforded him no opportunify to carry out his plans ; but wc fought well for him, on the principle of fair play to all. We craved for, and obtained time, which has been granted ; but when, as •the years came round, we witnessed the fall, one by one, of the pieces of fabric that unskilful hands had tried to rear in vain; when w-e saw the failure of the artifices and shifts to which Mr. Rees resorted, the odium he is casting on the district, and how his grand schemes of philanthropy, and universal happiness to mankind, have ended in airy visions—existing but in name-; When we see that instead of ‘■‘benefiting tile 'human race,” he has joined himself to an incongruous Oligarchy of landsharks ; when we reflect, in fact, that he has made a mess of everything he has taken in hand, we conclude that, with the same conseien“tiousnessas that with which we supported him during the season of our belief in him, we are bound to withdraw our support, now that every vestige of that belief has departed.

Throughout the electioneering contest, we have refrained from adding to the full measure of unfounded reports that political quid nunCs do so like to spread, imputing motives to the several candidates ; and questioning the credibility of their statements as to the bona fides of their candidature. We shall continue in this course, as its opposite is not only unfair, but an imputation of untruth, and falsity of speech, to the gentlemen engaged in the contest. Election canards are fair enough in their way ; and all legitimate means to turn the current of popularity from an opponent to one’s own friend, cannot be questioned, while they help to make a candidate and his supporters keep their wits at work, aud embolden them to constant action. But we do think when a candidate has been openly accused of running a bogus race, in some other candidate’s interest ; or that he has no intention to go to the poll, and will sell his supporters at the eleventh hour ; and when that candidate has, as openly, pledged his word that such is not the case, even the common courtesies of life demand of us to receive his assertion as true. Three out of the four candidates, now in the field, have publicly stated, both in writing and on the platform, that they do intend to go to the poll, and we are bound to believe them. Our evening contemporary — albeit without any desire to disbelieve —helps, almost diurnally, to keep the question in an unsettled state. In the herald s issue of Monday last it produces some well-grounded arguments in favour of the candidate it has selected to pull off honors at the coming election ; and, of course, relatively, against his opponents. But the interfusion of suggested probabilities weakens those arguments considerably. The Herald has a perfect right to forecast its man as being our future representative, when the numbers are up. It is its manifest duty, in recordin’ 7, the state of public feeling, to draw deductions from facts. Thus : Our contemporary has a perfect right, if it so think, to say that “ Mr. Locke now stands higher than ever in favor with the electors,” and that Mr. McDonald stands infinitely lower.” These are self-evident facts, especially the latter. But it is not correct to add the reverse of a self-evident fact, that Captain 1 outer and Mr. Hannon “ are both quite out of the running ;” for iu very truth it is these two candidates that are forcing the running, and were it not ‘for them there would be little more than a walk over for Mr. Me Donald. These, however, after all, are mere matters of opinion ; our contention is tna,t our contemporary has gone considerably out of his way in aspersing Captain Porter individually, whom it appears to have signalled from the crowd as a special mark for condemnation ou the score of

want of veracity. The Herald says that, notwithstanding the many asseverations made by Captain I’orter to the contrary, there is a “ strongly expressed doubt ” if he will really go to the poll; that ive believe he is daily advised to withdraw by those “Io “ whom he has long been intimately , known,” and that his'friends “ would be willing to render him all good service did they not feel it would “be to no purpose.” Such statements go forth with some show of authority, but, as they are not true, they cannot be allowed to remain unchallenged. Captain Porter has again requested us, by telegraph, to say that he does not intend to resign, nor relinquish his claim oil the electors, in favor of either of the other candidates. From what we learn he is growing in favor daily, and his chances and hopes of topping the poll increase in number and intensity the nearer the crisis approaches. Whichever is the elected man, we believe it will be a hard struggle for place ; therefore, as the candidates are all running square, it is only right that no accusations should be brought to bear against them, which have no foundation in fact, and which they themselves have contradicted.