Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. Thursday, December 15, 1881.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 1012, 15 December 1881, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard.

PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. Thursday, December 15, 1881.

We 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.

A nobler sentiment cannot rail from the tongue of man than that to which Mr M. J. Gannon gave expression in returning thanks at the announcement of thepoll on Monday last. Mr Gannon then said in effect, if not in so many words, that, as the contest was over, it was useless wasting one’s time in vain regrets ; those who have lost should bear their reverses as men ; and it was pre-eminently their duty to bury the hatchet and lend the elected member every assistance in their power to promote the common good of the district. As we have said, there is a noble sentiment—if sentiment, in its poetic sense, it can be called —embodied in that expression that it will do good to us all to take to heart. We are thoroughly at one with Mr Gannon ; and we take this opportunity of saying that that defeated candidate lias but anticipated us in the expression of a desire to accept the inevitable with a good grace. Now that the strife is over, no possible good can result from perpetuating an hostility, of persons and principles, which, good enough in its proper season of warfare, is much to be reprobated in times of peace. As far as Mr McDonald is concerned we accept him with a political blessing, ■and a trusting hope that he will, in future, gain wisdom from the lessons of the past. We have fallen from him because he has fallen from the cause he originally undertook to support; and we too have given our allegiance to the Hall Ministry, in preference to that of which Sir George Grey was the Premier, because we found that the former fulfilled the promises it made towards this district, while the Grey Government merely dangled the bait of expectation before our eyes. It “ kept the word of promise to our ear, but broke it to our hope.” As far as “ party,” per se, is concerned, we do not think the general public care a rush for it, simply because there is no such thing in the Colony, except in name. In principle, and the fundamentalisms of our political life, there is no such thing as “ party.” True, there are “ caucuses,” and little companies told off from the battalion, who throw themselves into skirmishing order to harass, and keep the enemy in check; but there are no really well-defined lines, either of action or principle to warrant their selfstyled designation of “ party.” And in this connection we think Mr McDonald took so many cooks into his employ that he spoilt the broth. He kept on hammering away, meeting after meeting, about his party this, and his party that, that he hardly knew to which party he really did belong. Much of the opposition Mr McDonald has met with, has been that of his own begetting. Had that gentleman candidly—we will not say, penitently— acknowledged his sins and transgressions, and confessed to errors that others saw, he would have disarmed his foes of much of the sting of opposition with which he has had to contend. And the danger now before him is that the recent success may probably divert his mind from the improvement of his position, to a selflaudation of his own infallibility. We trust this may not be so ; for, while Mr McDonald has much yet to learn, he has more to unlearn ; and the most important of the latter is not to trust too much to himself to perforin, unaided, those things that should rest entirely on public opinion. For ourselves, we give Mr McDonald every assurance, that we shall still extend to him every possible leniency, and opportunity for fair play ; and if we find he is amenable to public i opinion, and more impressionable to the correction of his faults, he will I find us once more ranking on the list of his friends and supporters.

In reply to questions put to Mr Rees in addressing the electors for City North, he said, amongst other things,

*• that he was tne largest shareholder in, and solicitor for, the Poverty Bay Land Company; that Messrs. Beeves, De Lavtovk, and other Parliamentary candidates were shareholders also ; that the objects of that company were to ent up Native land into small farms for public settlement; that Messrs. Clark and Peacock were amongst those who had attempted to stop the floating of the company ; and that he had mortgaged some Native lands, but only for the execution of public works.” The question was then put to Mr Bees, ‘ Had you to withdraw your name from the Bast Coast Land Company in order to get it floated ?’ The reply was an emphatic denial.”

The question is, “ What will Mr Rees not give an emphatic denial to ?” while the answer his questioner received demonstrates the utter absurdity of persons putting questions to candidates at a public meeting. The latter is bound to have the better of the bargain, whatever right the querist may have on his side, and however much the replicant may diverge from the mathematical line of truth. . As a fact Mr Rees did not tell the truth, while it may be too strong language—as well as, probably, incorrect —to say that he told a deliberate lie, in saying that he did not “ withdraw his name, from the East Coast Land Company, L order to get it floated.” As a fact Mr Rees has not withdrawn “his name” nor any other portion of himself, from the Company. But it is a fact that Mr Rees had to withdraw, unreservedly, from the Directory, if not. “in order” to get the Company floated, to satisfy the objections of many intending shareholders, who made it a condition that if they joined in the venture, Mr Rees should have nothing to do with the working of it. And it is also a fact that if Mr Rees had been obstinate, and persisted in remaining on the Directory, the Company would not have been formed at all. But with whatever amount of ingenious argument we surround the matter the truth is still there that so little confidence was placed in Mr Rees, who had so signally failed in other similar projects, that had he not retired, this last, and most patent of his schemes would have fallen through. Therefore, Mr Rees’s denial of it is not consonant with fact or truth ; but we will do him the justice to say that, while he openly, and persistently contested the “ absolute necessity ” for his name being on the Board, when an opposite decision was arrived at he accepted his fate with becoming grace, and resignation, stating his belief that he thought they could do better without him, than with him. The writer is in a position to prove this, and, further, that Mr Rees’s “emphatic denial ” is tantamount to an emphatic untruth.