Untitled

Southland Times, Issue 1204, 1 February 1870, Page 2

One would think the Southland News had been appointed champion to Saint Macaitdbew from the alacrity with ■which, with op without provocation, it takes up the cudgels in hia cause. In a recent article it attempts to show that that gentleman still retains the full confidence of the Clutha electors, his connection with the odious Hundreds Act notwithstanding. Mr Macandbew had been called upon to resign by a large number of his constitutents, but such a master of casuistry was not of course to be easily ousted from a cherished seat, and, consequently, he evades giving a direct reply to the requisitionists by retorting the charge of inconsistency upon some of their own number who happen also to stand in the position of representatives, although in the inferior legislature. As Mr MA.CAm>BEw's "explanation" has been placed before the readers of the Southland Mews, it is only fair that the other side should also be heard. The following letter in the Bruce Herald of the 2Gth ult. is the reply of one gentleman to the attack made upon him: — " Siß,—ln your issue of the 12th inst., I observe Mr Macandrew's reply to the petition sent him from the electors of the Clutha district, asking him to resign his seat as their representative in the General Assembly. I should not have taken the slightest notice of this reply, were it not that he endeavors to make me appear as glaringly inconsistent as himself. He says — ' If anything could show clearly the utter rottenness of the grounds upon which I am called upon to resign, it is the circumstance that Messrs Henderson and Thomson have themselves, as your representatives in the Provincial Council, approved and confirmed the principles of the very Act, for supporting which as your representative in the higher legislature, I have forfeited their confidence.' A more glaring display of inconsistency it would be difficult to conceive. Now, sir, I have not changed my views in the slightest degree respecting the Hundreds Eegulation Act ; lam now of the same opinion regarding it as I was when I first read it. I believe that it is a moat unjust Bill, and very injurious to the interests of the whole inhabitants of the Province — excepting a few runholders, for whose benefit alone it. appears to have been got up. lam opposed to the whole Bill ; I would have it swept entirely away from our Statute Book. It might be asked, why then did I support the

amandment3 to the Bill ? "Well, I reply that I did so, not because I approved of the amendments, but of all evils I always choose the least, and because I preferred the amendments to the whole BUI. By supporting the amendments, I. assisted to prevent the whole Bill, with allots evil effects, from being put into operation until after the next meeting of the General Assembly, and I feel confident that, if the views of the people of Otago were fairly represented by petitions to the General Assembly, this obnoxious and injurious Bill would be cancelled. These are the reasons why I supported the amendments, and I feel confident that my constituents will give me credit for having acted honestly, with the best intentions, and for the best interests of the Province. Ttat part of his Honor's reply which refers to the 'Doctor Fell] style of argument is very characteristic, and is, in my opinion, utterly unworthy of having emanated from one holding the honorable position of our representative in the higher legislature. But I leave to some abler pen to review his Honor's curious reply to the electors of the Clutha. — I am, &c, Donald Hentdebson."