The Oamaru Mail THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 1884.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1322, 20 March 1884, Page 2

The Oamaru Mail THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 1884.

The turmoil of the general election is beginning betimes in this politically sensitive portion of New Zealand. Already are the ruthless stratagems of such an occasion being practised. The impatient grandmother of Thames-street has prematurely commenced her maunderings, unable, by reason of the irresistible mental weakness oE senility, to observe discretion. She is in an 1 alarmingly critical condition. The sorry victim of phantasms, she sees little else but impalpable creatures, which menace her, taunt her, and rack her poor old head. They cruelly remind hev of her imbecility in 1881, when her whimsical attempt to divert the current of public opinion, proved distressingly abortive. She raves at the calm aspect of the hero of a thousand fights, who, on that occasion, supplied her wMi food for nearly three years' bitter reflection. The bare name of her victorious Israelitish antagonist maddens her. The poor , old creature has barely survived the defeat which she courted by opposing him against reason and public opinion. She says nothing against his policy because she fears that public opinion which compelled her to accept that policy in her old ago. But she hates the man who has been one of the chiefs in the concretion of that policy, and who is one of its most unswerving and uncompromising votaries—who is, in fact, the embodiment of liberalism in this part of the colony. It is this old woman —the North Otago Times—that " is heartily sick of Mr Shrimski," and no wonder. It is in the office of that paper that the " considerable.section of the electors" exist who are dissatisfied with him, and who desire a change. We know more of public opinion than the editor of our contemporary, and we confidently assert that there is no public dissatisfaction with Mr Shrimski. The electors will not be misled by any such transparent trick as that of which our contemporary has been guilty, into a dislike of the very man who has been the steadfast champion of their rights. They will demand of our contemporary its reasons why they should turn their backs upon him at such a time as this. That he has not addressed them is no sufficient reason for a change. It is only a subterfuge, to hide a petty personal spite. Our contemporary urges that Mr Shrimski should address the electors because " Almost every member of Parliament who represents a town constituency has, since last session, addressed his constituents." Now, we find that, of the 91 European members in the House of Representatives, only 12 have delivered political addresses, and that of these only five are representatives of town constituencies. Our contemporary is quite as near to the truth as one could expect; but it cannot hope the electors to be guided by an agency which is as inaccurate as its judgment is nnsonnd and its motives are impure. Then, even -if it be admitted that it was Mr Shrimski's duty to address the electors, and that It is not his intention to do it, the principal reason which our contemporary gives why he should be punished .by political banishment is non-existent, because it •is based upon false premises. Our contemporary's next objection to MrShrimski ■is that "the same numerous set of persons, we are told, have long thought that a town like Oamaru should be represented in Parliament by a man of greater political calibre than Mr Shrimski." Our contemporary is " told." We fear that somebody has been '' stuffing" it. Our contemporary in the e'ection of 1881 brought f rward a person of " greater political calibre," Btill the electors chose Mr Shrimski by an overwhelming majority. Of what does "political calibre" consist? Does a man possess it who has a surface of personal polish, beneath which there is a hcartlessnesa for the masses which approaches the brutality of the homicide? By such has the colony been ruled by a rod of iron, and dragged into such poverty that it is only fit for a residence for the wealthy. Our contemporary would give us Major Atkinson or Mr Bolleston—Major Atkinson, the arch enemy of progress who is driving us into a condition of starvation in which we Bhall shortly have no choice but to feed on one another—who has been given his walking-ticket by his constituency, and who is on the eve of being driven from power. He would give us Mr Rolleston —the man who, blindly guided by North Island interests, has ali?nated the confidence, and even respect, of the most faithful of his too confiding adherents, and who will be driven into political obscurity, if he trusts to those who know him to give him another passport into Parliament. These are the men of "greater political calibre" whom our contemporary would foist upon us —Other people's rejected scum, forsooth ! How can our contemporary ever expect forgiveness for such inconsistency ? One word of advice to our contemporary : Never fly so flagrantly in the face of pnblic opinion—in other words, never quarrel with your bread and butter—unless you are sure of a big subsidy for your pains.