The Westport Times. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1869.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 576, 4 November 1869, Page 2

The Westport Times. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1869.

The West Coast supporters of Messrs. Akersten and Gibbs have, at least, one common cause of sympathy. They have been thoroughly defeated —defeated in their hopes of the support which their favorite candidate would elsewhere receive, and defeated in their object of ousting Mr Curtis from the Superintendent's chair. In either case the strength used has been strength wasted. It has been especially so in the support given to Mr Akersten, because in his case the promises, the assurances, aud the consequent hopes among those who believed, were greatest, while the results have been smallest. In the case of Mr Gibbs the assurances—but especially the assurance—were less, while the numbers who voted were more—although they were not so extravagantly numerous, compared with the number who voted for Mr Akersten, as to give anybody cause for congratulation upon their foreknowledge of events. They were just sufficiently numerous, as we think, to demonstrate what we always indicated—that, on the Nelson side, compared with Mr Akersten, Mr Gibbs had the majority ; and so, in the same way, the contrast between Mr Akersten's asseverations and assurances and their realisation is just sufficiently great to demonstrate what we ventured to insinuate—that he, was misleading or being misled. So.much for that. Both parties having been misled as well as defeated, perhaps neither ought now to have much to say.

The West Coast electors have a second common ground of sympathy, and however they voted —whether for Mr Akersten or for Mr Gibbs—their votGS were, no doubt, given in expression of that common feeling. Though in appearance divided, they were in principle united. Their principle was to protest against the re-election of Mr Curtis, and, viewed in that light, apart from the opinion there may otherwise be as to the misdirection of their votes, the extraordinary unity displayed in Charleston and Brighton becomes almost picturesque. Its real meaning was " We are not voting for Akersten ovfor Gibbs; we are voting against Curtis; and on that point we are unanimous." It is to be hoped that Mr Curtis will distinguish in this unanimity something more than its mere pieturosqueness, and that he will during his future occupation of the office of Superintendent, returned though he has been by a large majority over the whole Province, defer somewhat more than he has done in the past to the expressed opinions of a district which is so great in extent and in character so distinct. His references to the Coast as a candidate may well be forgiven him as a Superintendent, and, reciprocating the feeling, he should remember that the inhabitants of the Coast are no longer a party exercising their privileges as electors either for or against him, but are a constituency of whom he is the elected representative. The difference between these positions he has, of course, already realised by his having previously held the same office, but we shall hope that, during his new tenure of office, he will realise it more amply, and that we shall also realise more amply the benefits of the fulness of that realisation.

With respect to the position of local parties created by the contest if parties they may be called—we have already said that the disposition will, no doubt, be as it ought to be —to obliterate any recollection of the past, so far as display of antagonistic feeling has gone, and to allow the world to wag as it wont. We do not recognise that we in any degree departed from our determination to assist the encouragement of this disposition by writing on the moraine: after the election with some emphasis as to one of its results. Nor do we think we depart from that determination—at least we do not desire to do so —by referring now to some of the local characteristics of the contest, if it can at all be dignified by such a name. We refer particularly to the circumstances which justified us, as we believe we were justified, in stating that some who interested themselves in the election—we may even confine it to one—had become "rampant and—much more than rampant outrageous." The "some" we spoke of then as a triumvirate, but it is but fair to one of its members—Mr Simpson—tostate that he was referred to only in consequence of his accidental association with the pluckv " minority" of the Public Committee. And of MrO'Conorit hasto be said that throughout the agitation—for it cannot be called a contest—there was on his part shown whatever there might exist—a fair, open, and warm electioneering spirit. In his early action there was nothing to be complained of, and there were some things upon which he might be complimented.

Towards the climax, it is true, what may he described as his evil genius "developed," and, had the hopes which he unreasonably, or, at any rate, erroneously entertained of his candidate, been realised, he might have become a caution to higher forms of life than snakes; but the result of the poll at Nelson " flabbergasted " him, and we forgive him. He wrought well in a bad cause, yet he deserved a better reward. It was on the part of the other member of the " minority " th.it there was an exhibition of the " rampant and outrageous " which even constitutional temperament or the most perfect personal sacrifice for public interests could not excuse. For the whim of the moment—for the fleeting vanity—there was, on the public platform, and elsewhere, a despisal of common amenities, and an outrage of friendship and citizenship which the contemptible contest did not really justify, and which, but for the result, might have become rabidly rampant — perhaps infectious. In the interests of all, aud especially of those upon whom politics have such a poisonous effect, we may well rejoice that elections do not come frequently, and hope that that which is just past will soon be forgotten.