EDITORIAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXIII, Issue 7357, 3 November 1898, Page 1

EDITORIAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Writing some days ago when Mr Guinness practically withdrew his motion In favor of a big borrowing policy, we expressed a hope that the member for Grey would take another opportunity of testing the feeling of tha House on .the question. .We did so because we. are aware ithat.there are many;in the country who desire to return to a .heroic public works r policy, and we -wished to see a definite ■ issue .raised upon■ the subject, not with any desire that ;it might find favor with -the House, but : because we hoped that an effective check might be given to any aspirations after a return to the borrowing and squandering policy of former times. On Tuesday night Mr Guinness gratified our desire by moving an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the. Railways Authorisation Bill, inviting the .House to direct the Government to briijgdown a Bill.providing for the borrowing of a sufficient sum to complete the unfinished railway lines, with a view to the vigorous prosecution of the work of construction. It has been computed that .this would mean a loan of something like four millions, with a probability of the amount being considerably swelled by the introduction into the proposed policy of a number of pet projects which members have on hand ready to launch upon the country at the first favorable opportunity. The order was, however, fortunately too big for the House to agree to, and the result was that, after a brief debate, the proposal was rejected by :the overwhelming majority of 44 to 7. We believe that the voting upon the question fairly represents the mind of the country. But what of the 21 members who took no side in the division? No mention being made of pairs, are we to conclude that they shirked the ordeal of declaring-their views upon the question 1 Are we to assume that they had no mind upon a matter of such vital importance, or that, having a mind, they dare not expose it ? Was it a case of letting " I dare not wait upon I would"? The country has a right to demand of these members a plain statement of their opinions upon the auestion, and we hope that their constituents will insist upon that demand being complied with. It is gratifying to know that a substantial majority of the whole House promptly rejected the seductive suggestion, and we hope that the last has been heard of it at anyrate for the life of the present Parliament. As we said on a previous occasion, the question Is one for the country's consideration, and not one for the present House to determine, except in the negative. Before a return is made to.a heroic public works policy the country must be consulted, and the country must be fully informed of the consequences of taking such a step. We have every confidence that whenever the question is raised in the country the answer will be an unmistakable refusal to sanction a return to a policy which narrowly escape proving disastrous to the colony.

The Taapeka election has resulted, as I most people expected it would do, in the return of Mr Rawlins, the Opposition candidate. Bub the Conservatives have no warrant for indulging in jubilation over the success of their chosen champion. Mr Rawlins is only, a minority representative after all, and as every effort was made, and no doubt with success, to secure for him the undivided support of the opponents of the Ministry, the fact stands revealed that the Opposition are in a decided minority in the electorate. In this connection it may be noted that the total number of votes polled yesterday was 385 less than those recorded at the general election about two years ago. The number cast for Mr Rawlins shows a falling off 450 as compared with thoße given to him in 1896, when he opposed the late Mr Larnach, a much stronger competitor than he had to meet yesterday. As we said some days ago, however, the election has no particular significance. The retirement of Mr Sim, the Ministerial candidate, owing to illness and consequent inability to carry through a contested election, deprived the contest of any semblance of being a trial of strength between parties. Judging.from the result the conclusion is justified that had the contest been a straight-out contest between two candidates representing the opposing political camps Mr Rawlins would have suffered a third defeat. As it is Mr Ramsay made a good fight against him, and that, too, despite the facts that he is a non-resident of the district, and that local popularity and narrow parochialism caused 798 votes to be thrown away upon Messrs Gilkison and Symes. Mr Ramsay also damaged his chances by undoubted wobbling. Had he stood as a Liberal prepared to support the present Ministry until a better team could be. found to take their places and carry out the progressive policy, he would probably have stood a much better chance of election. To commence an election contest as an avowed Independent Liberal, bent on creating a new party—an ambitious project, by the way, for a political neophyte to promise to undertake—and bhen, on the retirement of the Ministerial candidate, to do not a little " hedging" to catch the votes of Ministerialists, is nob calculated to Inspire with. confidence electors ■ who look upon consistency and steadfasb adherence to convictions as essential qualities in a member of Parliament. It is to be hoped that Mr Ramsay will profit by. the lesson. Bub most of all ib is to be hoped that the [ Liberal electors, who have for -a year to acknowledge as their representative one who does nob represent the predominant sentiment of the electorafce, will utilise the Interval in preparing for a true trial of strength at the general election next year. If they do so, and concentrate their energies upon the return of one acceptable candidate, we have no' hesitation in saying that Mr Rawlins' Parliamentary career will be short, as it is likely, judging from his utterances, to be inglorious.