TOWN EDITION. Evening Post MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1881. IDLE OBSTRUCTION.

Evening Post, Volume XXII, Issue 68, 19 September 1881, Page 2

TOWN EDITION. Evening Post MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1881. IDLE OBSTRUCTION.

? It is a great pity that those members who are opposed to the Representation Bill did not appreciate the wisdom of " letting well alone." They had the hearty sympathy of a large section of the colony in their opposition to the bill, and in their gallant and determined struggle against overwhelming odds. They had fought a good fight, they had kept their faith, and, had they been wise, they would have let the matter rest and accepted their orown of glory at the hands of their admiring and enthusiastic constituents, after their party had undergone martyrdom, being "killed" by the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees In their resistance to a thoroughly bad and objectionable bill they had the moral support of nearly all the North Island and a considerable portion of the South. For the manner of their resistance — the only one possible under the circumstances — they had precedents in the action of the Provincial party against Abolition in 1b75, and of the present Ministry against Mr. Maoandbkw 8 no-confidence motion in 1879. For the mannor in which they were crushed, in defiance of all rules and Standing Orders, there was no precedent, lhey might well have rested on their hard-won laurels, and remained satisfied with having done their best. * But some people never can "'let well alone."

How often do we find a good case turned into a bad one through being overstated ! Many an effective role has been marred by the exaggeration of an actor who, in striving at too much, has over-done his part and turned it into burlesque. A veryiifine ghost in a most thrilling Btory wa3 once utterly spoiled by the addition of a cocked hat. And this was just the case of the Stonewallera on Saturday night. Their behaviour waa altogether absurd and irrational. There was some sense and justification in their resisting an objectionable measure while the whole question was before the House. We only regret that they were not successful in " killing " it. But they were Bnppressed by toe "iron hand" tactics employed against them, and in spite of their efforts the bill passed both Houses. It was perfectly ridiculous to resume the battle over a few little trumpery amendments in district boundaries!"which moreover actually tend in the very direction for which both we and the stonewallers contended, namely, an abatement of the injustice inflicted by the bill. Surely it is unreasonable in the higheat degree to " stonewall " amendments which diminish the injurious operation of the measure in regard to particular districts. For inatance, the amendments do away with a few of the rank absurdities proposed in respect to the Wellington electorates — such as throwing KilbirnieandKarori into Hntt, and Kaiwarra and Ngahauranga into Foxton. We could not wish the stonewallers to have been successful in preventing the correction of these blunders. In short their conduct on Saturday night was quite indefensible, and we very much regret that they should have discredited their previous gallant defence by burlesqning it with a mere exhibition of idle obstruction.