THE LATE ELECTION.
TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— Your correspondent Mr N. Sutherland has failed in the courtesy of reply to my very reasonable questions. He says: “ Mr Hutchison’s position is to be regretted. Had his advisers and Mr Gourley’s acted as advised a week ago, the latter could have beaded the poll, and Mr Hutchison would have had the esteem and gratitude of all, besides earning a strong claim for recognition of past services which could not have been ignored. Now, if Mr Hutchison’s past honorable services are entitled to recognition —Mr N. Sutherland admits they are—surely it is sophistry to talk about “earning a strong claim for their recognition.” What would Mr Sutherland say if, by virtue of past services, he (Mr Sutherland) was entitled to recognition from those to whom those services had been rendered when the time for that recognition to be operative he was told: “ You must first do so-and-so to ‘earn a strong claim,’” etc. ? Mr Sutherland’s humiliating doctrine is a poor inducement for able men to become public servants, and it would suggest to many men, if in Par; liament, “ Now I am here I will do the best I can for myself.” When Mr Sutherland called upon me at Mr Hutchison’s'committee rooms he astutely suggested: “Could no arrangement be made by which either Mr' Hutchison or Mr Gourley could be retired, and the seat be made secure to the Liberal party by such retirement expressing himself os anxious only for the solidarity of the party, irrespective of either candidate. Mr Sutherland’s actual purpose is clearly shown by his subsequent letter in your columns.—l am, etc., R. Clark. Dunedin; October 22.
Permanent link to this item
THE LATE ELECTION., Evening Star, Issue 10452, 23 October 1897, Supplement