EAST COAST ELECTION.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 384, 30 November 1889, Page 2

EAST COAST ELECTION.

WHAT A NAPIER PAPER HAS TO SAY ON THE SUBJECT.

THOSE CURSED TITLES. ARTHUR NOT GOT THE LEAST SHOW.

[from our owx cobbf.spondext.] Napier, last night. The pu blioation of a lengthy communication in to night’s Evening New's, respecting the ■East Coast election, and Mr Arthur’s native land transactions and the defective titles in connection therewith, has caused quite a mild sensation here, there being a great deal of comment on the obvious reason of Mr Arthur seeking election for the Poverty Bay constituency. The opinion field by the majority of Napier people is th'4t the recent disclosures must have the effect of Mr Arthur falling in the esteem of the East Coast electors, and that fie cannot now have the least possible show. Iu some quarters her* tbs election of Mr Rees is regarded as an absolute certainty. Ju a Sfiort, leader the Evening News to-night says :—We publish tq day a telegram to the News having particular reference to tfie Rast Coast election. The facte therein detailed speak for themselves, Despite Mr Arthur's distinct assurance that his letters to the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court were not Actuated by personal) and pecuniary reatons tye have now definite evidence to the contrary. It is manifest tq q)i sensible people that Mr Arthur, it elected, would eqtgr the House, not as a representative of the East Coast electors, but of his own interests, and those of the institution with whose interests he iz bound up. It wjll be for the electors of the East Coast to say whether they will return another mao whose sola object in entering Parliament is to "fix up * bad titles. We give them credit for better seuse, and we beiieva chat now they are placed in possession of the true facts concerning Mr Arthur's candidature they will ruthlessly reject him. and return Me Rsea by a large majority, Let every business man and Battler in Poverty Bay, and nt the Wairoa, ask himself the question, " Shall I vote for a mere [the expressions used are too warm for our reproduction of them] —-financial aggrandisement, or shall I vote for a gentleman whose par.jainentary experience, personal tact, and talent, and anxiety for the general prosperity and advaucemeat of the district are striking proofs in his favor ?" With the Graham experience before them the East Coast die'etocs should have no ditficulty in answering the and their answer will, we fee) sure, on the polling day, tie one which WiU be emiueq'.iy satisfactory to Mr Mees, but which will be terribly disappointing to Messrs Ormond, Graham, Arthur, and others of the nativelaudgrabbing clique.