South Canterbury Times, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1881.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2695, 8 November 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1881.

Mr Hayhurst, in his address at Temuka the other night appears to hare laid great stress upon the fact that he is a local man, and advanced this as a circumstance that ought to be counted as an important one in his favor as against one at least of the other two candidates. In this we think he made a mistake. If the supposition that a local man must necessarily make a better Parliamentary representative than another is adopted as a guiding principle in elections, it will follow that a good many constituencies in the colony will be indifferently repre-

seated. Many of the electoral districts are of such geographical form and are industrially or otherwise divided into sections whose interests are so different from each other, that each may be said to comprise more than one “ locality,” using this word in the sense in which the “ local ” man applies that term to himself. The Geraldine district contains twojoad districts, and so far as we can judge each of these districts is a “ locality ” in that sense of the word we have supposed. One local candidate is put forward in each, and the electors in each seem largely to have determined for their own local candidate, as against the other at all events. This is quite in accordance with the false principle that a local man must make a better candidate than an “ outsider,” and the result will very possibly be that the believers in this principle, carrying it too far, will lose their votes by splitting them between the two “ local ” men in the field. We have not the slightest intention of teaching that a local representative is necessarily, because he is a local representative, generally less fitted to perform the duties of a legislator than another who is not so circumstanced, nor that this is the case in this particular instance. Quite the contrary ; but we wish to point out that it is possible to attach too great importance to the fact that the candidate is a local man. This may be considered a qualification, but it should be considered a minor one, only to be thrown in as a make-weight in arriving at a final estimate of the fitness of rival candidates, if otherwise they appear equally fitted to perform the duties required of a representative. The electors of Geraldine, for instance, have plenty of grounds upon which to form an opinion of the suitability of the candidates in the field, without reference to the circumstance of their being local men or otherwise, —plenty of reasons for rejecting the “ outsider ” besides the trifling one that he is an outsider, plenty of reasons for desiring to change their representative, besides a friendly desire to send an old neighbor, a local man, to Parliament—and it would be wiser to leave out this consideration altogether. By placing it in the foreground, more important considerations uyiy run the risk of being hidden. It will be admitted that there are important matters at stake, audit is to a candidate’s attitude towards these that the attention of the electors should be turned, rather than to the unimportant matter of where the candidate resides. We have referred particularly to the case of the Geraldine electorate, Mr Hayhurst’s remarks having suggested our own, but the same considerations are applicable to the case of all electorates where an election is to be contested by “local” men and outsiders. What are the candidate’s political opinions ? What is his character as a public man ? What degree of satisfaction has he given in public capacities, if he has held any ? These are questions that should be first asked and fully answered before it is asked, Where does he live '? If these questions were asked and answered in the case of the Geraldine contest, for instance, the “ local man ” argument would be seen to be unnecessary by the majority of the electors of that district ; it would be seen that to condemn one candidate as an “ outsider ” merely was letting him off very lightly, while to “ run ” others on the ground that they are “ local men ” merely, is, to say the least, to take a lower view of their merits than they surely deserve.

The public of New Zealand, and all who, in any part of the world, take a lively interest in this colony are deeply indebted to newspaper correspondents whose determination and ingenuity enabled them to evade Mr Bryce’s ridiculous command, that no representatives of the Press should be allowed to witness the proceedings at Parihaka on Saturday. The Press was informed that intelligence of what occurred would be officially communicated, but the probable value of that intelligence was estimated as next to nothing, and the event proved this to be correct. The “ official ” intelligence made about 40 lines of ordinary newspaper matter —the “ Lyttelton Times,” through the pluck and perseverance of the interdicted “ specials,” obtained nearly six columns ! We feel a little sore on the subject ourselves, as not having anticipated any such absurd restriction, we had made arrangements for a full account of the proceedings, and were unable to procure it through Mr Bryce’s folly. Of all unsatisfactory information the most unsatisfactory is “official” information on matters of this kind, for the testimony must be that of a biassed party. It is only through the trained, “ free and independent ” representative of the Press that a reliable account of stirring scenes can be obtained. However, it is all over now, and the silly regulation having been most successfully evaded, we can afford to forget it, and laugh with the correspondents at the result of their smartness. But had it not been so evaded the people would have suffered a long while from a bitter feeling of disappointment at the unnecessary ignorance they would have been compelled to labor under, in respect of one of the most striking events that has ever occurred in New Zealand.