Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. Tuesday, December 13, 1881.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 1011, 13 December 1881, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard.

PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. Tuesday, December 13, 1881.

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

An official announcement of the result of the East Coast Election was made by Mr Returning Officer Johnston, at the Government Buildings, yesterday, which places the matter now at rest, and Mr. Allan McDonald is the elected member for the next three years, unless some exigency of party struggle, and desire to oust the Government, render another appeal to the Colony necessary. Confining our remarks, for the present, to the election itself, it cannot be said, in view of the division of parties contesting the seat with Mr. McDonald, that, although elected, he is the representative of the majority of the electors. His positive victory is a comparative defeat; for he occupies the equivocal position of having been returned by a minority—not only of the whole number of electors on the roll, but of those who actually recorded their votes. The registered number on the original and supplementary rolls is 1524, out of which 1184 voted, excluding 19 informal votes. Of course it is impossible to say how the informal votes would have been used, but as their number is exactly thatof the sum of the difference between Mr. McDonald and Mr. Locke, their addition to the latter gentleman’s figures, might have materially improved his position. Therefore, putting them on one side, we find that Mr. McDonald, representing the Gbey or Opposition party, polled only 441 votes, as against 743 polled by Messrs. Eocke, Porter, and Gannon, pledged to support the Hall Ministry, and only 19 more than Mr. Locke, who ran him hard for first place ; and the difference between these again, being a majority of 302 in favor of the Government candidates, demonstrates pretty clearly that that number of electors, at least, cannot be said to be represented by Mr. McDonald, to say nothing of the 300, odd, electors who did not vote at all. That is his true Parliamentary position ; and, although no blame attaches to him for it, it is nothing to be jubilant over. It is the bad tact, and ill-advised action of his opponents, that have given him the advantage, and turned what would certainly have been a glorious victory for the Government into defeat. In fact the whole contest has been a sadly mismanaged business, by the Government candidates, throughout; and will serve as a lesson for the future. Had these three candidates, instead of damaging by competition, the cause they professed to espouse, come to a sensible arrangement for two to withdraw, and leave one to do battle single handed, there can be no question that Mr. McDonald would have had to take a back seat. Or, had they struck defined lines, so that the electors would have had assurance that there were distinct issues before them—conflicting principles to select from—it might have been said that it was the profession of those principles that they opposed, and not the candidate himself, and Mr. McDonald —assuming the numbers to have come out the same —could have claimed, as he would have -won, a substantial victory ; whereas, by dividing their party into three, and weakening and separating forces whose effectiveness lay in their unity, the enemy is allowed to enter their own fortress, and they powerless to prevent him. Again, a triple fight amongst rival, but friendly candidates, detracted seriously from the importance and dignity of the issues. The question was narrowed down, to one of men not principles, because, where they all subscribed, with but little variation in detail, to the same political faith, each candidate must necessarily have been supported more from personal regard, or a “ jolly good fellow ” kind of influence, than the loftier one of political consideration. True, in many instances, it may be said that the electors made their choice from their knowledge of the superior personal ability of the individual man whom they intended to support, to carry out the policy the candidates collectively held to ; but that constitutes the essence of the evil, and is an utter waste of voting power, unless supported by other overlying considerations. We cannot blame the electors, either, except that the result of their labors shows there has been no cohesion of thought, and less unity of action amongst them; they have wasted their time, and thrown away a chance they may not have again for some time. Nevertheless, in Mr. McDonald’s vernacular, “ facts are duels that w’inna ding ” and the figures we have furnished support the fact that Mr. McDonald does not enjoy the confidence of a majority of either the wealth, or numbers of the electors -of the East Coast.

There can be no doubt that Captain Porter and Mr M. J. Gannon must have been terribly deceived in the promises of support they were led to expect at the last Election. In fact, even Mr McDonald, himself, has miscalculated his true position, for he and his friends thought ho was going to outstrip his opponents, hands down. Mr Locke is the only candidate to whom his supporters has remained loyal, although it is quite possible that even, he has,

been “ to a certain extent. The resuL of Friday’s polling, taken in connection, with the inducements held out to Messrs Gannon and Porter to come forward, evidently indicate the utter futility of relying on the oral guarantees of men. It also amply demonstrates the unreliableness of expressions and resolutions of public meetings as the correct index of public opinion. As we have been made aware, from time to time, during the election, nothing could have been more promising, from a candidate’s point of view, than the assurances-these two gentlemen received of a hearty and extended support; indeed, one of them made no secret o± the pleasure with winch he viewed the certainty of his election, by a pardonable,—still rather too reliant—exhibition of the numbers he expected to poll. And these, too, as we understand, not from any foundationless expectation that certain electors might, vote for him, but from mature calculations based on the faithful performance of promises made, either by the voters themselves, or their friends, that they ivould vote for him. And what is the result? Captain Porter polls a little more than two-fifths of bis expected number, and Mr Gannon, —not having exhibited his figures, but confident of topping the list—is placed at the bottom of the Poll I Comment upon such a state of political immorality is useless. If electors do not know better how to use the franchise than to exercise the rankest deception towards the candidates, no amount of preaching or leader writing will teach them. But not here does the evil stop. It saps the very foundation of the ballot, and destroys the value of the trust which some confiding souls look upon as “ sacred.” Sacred, indeed I No*t all the teaching, and preaching, and writing to the contrary that can be piled up in a generation, between this and blue Olvmpus, will ever shake our disbelief in the political morality of some men who are at liberty to do one of two things. It is a fine theory indeed to tell a man that when he is shut up in the recess of a polling booth, in a time of exceptional excitement, when conflicting interests occupy his mind, that he is alone with his conscience, and that according to its dictates he must act. What are the dictates, we ask, of a man’s conscience, who promises his support, not only to one, but to two or more candidates, and goes straight (or crooked) and votes for another? The dictates are those which will most enhance the consummation of his object, and keep him clear of detection, and the consequences of the deception he has practised. And it is the ballot, or secret voting, that favors this sort of thing. Still wo are not unmindful of the many blessings, we could say, if used and not. abused, that the Ballot confers ; but, like all things held in light esteem, and easily acquired, possession lessens the value.

The first fruits of the democratic element infused into our electoral laws by the extension of the franchise to a manhood qualification, have been tasted, by the rejection of some of our best aud ablest men from the House of Representatives. Men who have been in public life from boyhood, and who have exercised political sway over the destinies of the Colony for a quarter of a century, have been told off to the cold shades of oblivion to pass their days in sorrow and regret. There are some amongst these whom the Colony can ill afford to spare from the People’s Council, even though we may not agree with them. We never did, and cannot now, trust Mr Ormond ; but we repeat that it is a misfortune he is not again in the House. It is such men as he who, good in Opposition, whet the flagging energies of Governments, and spur them on to better deeds. Mr Ormond is not a man fit to be trusted with any seat in a Ministry, except a subordinate one, and that he would not take. His pride is too great, and it is that domineering spirit that has lost him his election, lie has traded on his popularity, and relied too confidently on the power he once wielded, to stoop to the reflection, or admit the possibility, of failure. Wrapped up in his own personal estimation of himself, he has slept on his laurels, and let his grocer beat him in the fight. The result of the contest must be a keen blow to a man of Mr Ormond’s extremely proud sensitiveness. And to be rejected for such a plebeian too I But the lesson his and Captain Russell’l defeat leaches is significant of the direction public opinion is taking. And not only their defeat, but others of a like school. It is an emphatic protest against the supremacy of the landowning class, whose years have been spent with an eye to their own aggrandisement. Had the Colony been searched for an example of what the altered state of the public mind really is with regard to this matter, no better one could have been found than that of Mr Ormond’s rejection at the hands of men, who, as part of his former Constituency, he has helped to make what they are. Mr Ormond knows now how easy it is to nurse an adder till it stings yon. The Nemesis that has arisen to-day, to dethrone Mr Ormond from his celestial height, was created by himself years ago. He could not see that the prosperous result of adventitious circumstances, aud a pandering to everything that was vicious in principle and ignoble in man (such as his present friend, Mr John Buchanan, now affects to forget), ■ ore bogotton of a mythological Gad

that would sooner or later hurl him to the ground. We say, nevertheless, that there is a spice of ingratitude in Mr Ormond’s rejection, for, while Mr Ormond has done well out of the Public Estate himself, the public have proportionably benefited by Mr Ormond’s prosperity. The “ Feather-my-uest ” policy that lie used to decry in others, he has turned to good account himself; and, although he may now suffer from the effect of it having been a means to an end, in the past, it will not serve him in the hour of need, under the altered state of public opinion and the. liberality of the franchise which he has helped to provide. But, with all Mr Ormond’s faults, he is a man we should prefer seeing in the House, unless a better man were to take his place. Such Mr Smith is not, in either mind, body, or estate ; and we shall be very much mistaken if the electors do not soon repent the exchange they have made. With Mr Buchanan running as a yoke-fellow to his old opponent, the interests of Hawke’s Bay would have had a more powerful advocacy than is now likely to be the case. We always admire an enemy that requires looking after, and that is one reason we regret losing political sight of Mr Ormond.