South Canterbury Times. FRIDAY, FEB. 13, 1880.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2153, 13 February 1880, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. FRIDAY, FEB. 13, 1880.

Mu DoWXIK Stkwakt, M.H.li. for Dunedin City, has addressed his constituents. Coining from a gentleman well versed in legal polemics, his speech is characteristic, yet somewhat disappointing. A considerable portion of it can only be designated a speech for the defen’ee, and as the result of a hasty perusal, we cannot help thinking that it goes far to verify the old proverb about the man who is his own lawyer. As a personal refutation of the character for trimming which this young politician has acquired, it is far from satisfactory. Mr Stewart ingeniously endeavors to prove that although he opposed the Government of Sir George Grey, he did not break faith with his constituents, and the part he acted was perfectly consistent with his pledges. But if our memory is not sadly defective, Mr Stewart from the lirst led his constituents to believe that, if returned, ho would give the policy of the Grey Government .in independent support. Did he keep his word? A reference to “Hansard” shows that from the moment he entered the House his fixed determination was to get rid of the late Premier. His opposition to Sir George amounted almost to personal . animus, and the downfall of the Grey Administration was partly due to his repeated attempts to undermine it. Mr Stewart was one of the few Otago trimmers who, for motives best known to themselves attacked the late Ministry with a view to its reconstruction. Having got rid of their hctc noir, Sir George Grey, they were ready to swear fealty to Mr Macandrew. A great deal has been said about the secret Auckland compact, and the perfidy of the four members who arc alleged to have bartered for a consideration their support to the Hall Ministry. But what about the Otago compact ? Why were Mr Vincent Pyke, Mr Stewart and one or two others so anxious to get Sir George Grey out of the Ministry, and a new Cabinet formed under Mr James Macandrew? Mr Stewart takes the trouble to tell the electors that he had no expectation of office under Mr Macandrew, and that he never intended to accept ofliee under Mr Hall. Why does he not tain; his constituents into his confidence and explain the object he had in view in pulling the Grey Cabinet to pieces in order that Sir

George might be compelled to relinquish office. As for refusing to accept office under Mr Hall, the announcement, in the absence of any evidence that the present Ministry contemplated making such an offer, is somewhat premature. Mr Stewart was one of the few that entered Parliament unpledged to any party, yet with the express object of getting rid of the man whose existence at the head of the Government kept his party alive so long. Mr Stewart’s reference to Messrs Messrs McCaughan, Masters, and others, who seceded from the ranks of the late Government, comes with bad grace. If they have seceded they have not trimmed. If they have gained favors for their constituents, their support has not been bartered for office. Unlike Messrs Pykc and Stewart they have not ridden on a rail till their chances were “ up a tree.” Having deserted one Ministry they arc not found sitting on the same side of the blouse with the victims of their treachery. Their inconsistency is uncomparably better than the meanness of political acrobats, who with sinister design, endeavored to further demoralise a greatly demoralised Ministry, bj r removing the only man who dared to present an obstruction to flagrant extravagance and maladministration. After what we have witnessed of Mr Stewart’s political career, we arc not surprised that he should denounce the Hall Ministry. In fact we feel tolerably convinced that no Ministry will find favor in the eyes of Mr Stewart of which he is not a member. His explanation of the Grey-Kichardson episode unfolds his character as a politician. He encouraged Mr Richardson to prosecute his appeal re the Christchurch election, and then he took up the cause of Sir George. This may seem the right thing to Air Stewart, but it is not the kind of conduct which electors expect at the hands of a public representative. We are ready to concede that much of the censure which bus been applied to the Ministerial policy is richly deserved. The property tax and the district railways job are undoubtedly serious blunders. Rut the accusations levelled against the Ministry and their supporters conic with exceedingly bad taste from a political trimmer like Mr Downic Stewart. His action was partly instrumental in bringing the present .Ministry into power, and he should refrain from kicking against the structure he assisted to rear.