Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. Tuesday, December 6, 1881.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 1008, 6 December 1881, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard.

PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. Tuesday, December 6, 1881.

We shall sell to no man Justice or Right; We shall deny to no man Justice or Riyht; We shall defer to no man Justice or Right.

Mb. Allan McDonald was laboring, on Saturday night, under intense cerebro-nervous excitement, and he strove with all his might, though unsuccessfully, to throw it off, and to speak intelligibly. He spoke as one struggling for victory, yet conscious that defeat, if not inevitable, required him to work hard to avoid it. He felt it was necessary to make one final effort to repair the damage the other candidates have done his cause during the

campaign. He betokened a sensitiveness of the fact that he was following in the wake of three better men, and thoroughly incapable of coping with the various questions at issue ; and he labored much, to his own disadvantage, to establish a “ platform ” containing at least some points of divergence of opinion between the other candidates and himself. It was the first occasion on which Mr. McDonald has raised distinct issues to show that he is not travelling on the same ticket as his opponents. Now let us see what those issues are.

It is difficult to accuse Mr. McDonald of possessing any definite, or fixed political principles. Such a remarkably versatile man—who changes his tactics as the chamelion his hues, according to the position in which he is placed —such a “ slippery customer;” as some call him, is difficult to deal with. He changes front so often, that he does not know whether he is' proceeding,* dr-taking, ground to the rear. But if; he will l act so* unskilfully as to let uncertainty, dr the chapter of accidents guide him, the electors must pin him to selections of their own. Mr McDonald has said' on several occasions, and-he repeated the contradiction on-Saturday night, that,.firstly, he was an avowed opponent of the HalL Government; secondly, that he would stick to the Grey party and Liberal measures; thirdly, that all Governments were alike to him ; and fourthly, he declared, with more honesty than discretion, that he would support any Government so long as he did not injure himself ! We ask what is to be expected of a candidate that will so arm himself with alternative conditions? But, however undecided Mr. McDonald may be in his actions, there can be no doubt as to him being opposed, in general terms, to the Hall Ministry ; and in that he differs from Captain Porter, Mr. Gannon, and Mr. Locke, each of whom has distinctly proclaimed himself an ardent supporter of the Government. That is one issue.

Issue No. 2 is that Mr McDonald is a supporter of increased taxation. He said on Saturday night what he had not stated before, namely, that he would support both a Land Tax and an Income Tax, in preference to the present Property Tax. Do the working men, whose advocate Mr McDonald professes to be, know what this means ? Do the wool growers and large runholding electors intend to send a heavy taxing member to-Parliament, who will make them pay taxes, first for their land, and second for their income arising from that land ? Have the working men considered that there is not much generosity in their member helping them to employment, by the dispersion of public money, through the erection of a breakwater, “ at any cost,” and then taxing them for it ? It may be all very well to say that incomes under a certain amount, not generally within the reach of the working classes, will be exempt. They may be exempt from direct taxation, but not from indirect, as, if an employer of labor has his larger income suddenly imposted with a tax, it must re-act upon the labor from which that income is derived. He will either demand more work for the same wage, or a lessening of the rate of wages. Let the intelligent working man, let all classes of the community think this subject out. Let them reflect what the consequences of a dual system of taxation, such as that proposed by Mr McDonald, would be, and then question the propriety of electing him to a seat in the House. Strong as is the current of opposition to him now, had he ventured such a statement at an earlier stage of the canvass, it would have been still stronger ; but the reckless assertion is not made too late to lose him many votes.

There is only one other issue we shall note, and that is, if Mr McDonald were elected; he cannot, from his own confession, represent any but a small minority of the electors ; he cannot possibly .represent the majority, as a member should do. Whereas, whichever of the other three candidates is elected, he must represent the majority, and for the simple reason that they are all running on the same lines.’ There has been absolutely nothing disclosed, in the general outline of their principles, in which there is any essential difference. A more perfect agreement of opinion is seldom seen in opposing candidates; which, to some extent, mystifies the reason why they are opponents to each other, and probably renders it difficult for those who do not wish to see Mr McDonald reelected, to make a wise selection. But to return. There are, in round numbers, 1500 electors on the Roll. We will take the extreme view, and allow that they will all vote, to a man, which is not likely, but it leaves no margin for complaint at our apportionment of the figures. There are four candidates, and, say, the top scorer obtains 400, or even 500 votes ; that necessarily leaves a thousand voters practically unrepresented in Parliament, if Mr McDonald is elected, while that number would be represented by the election of either Mr Locke, Mr Gannon, or Captain Porter, for it must not be forgot that the same principles are held by these three candidates, which the electors are supporting through the agency