THE Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JULY 29, 1899. WELLINGTON ELECTION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 3472, 29 July 1899, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JULY 29, 1899. WELLINGTON ELECTION.

In one of the many controversies between the Eastern and AVestern Churches in the olden times, the discussion turned on the proper spelling of a certain Greek word. The point in dispute was whether it should contain the letter I or not. If it contained the letter I it meant one thing; if it did not it meant another thing. The AVestern doctors of theology held that the word honwousian meant sameness of substance, the Orientals insisted on placing the letter I between the two o’s, and making it homoio-ustan, or similarity of substance. The subject of the dispute was the Divine Trinity, and the controversy became so warm that it was said that the fate cf Christianity huing on the letter I. This happened in the fourth century, yet history has after this lapse of time practically repeated itself in this colony. The Marino Scandal is practically the outcome of whether the accent should be placed on the first or last syllable in the word “ permit.” If the accent should be placed on the last syllable it would be a verb, and imply that the Hon. AA r . Hall-Jones had ordered the violation of the Marine Regulations ; if jfiaced on the first syllable it would bs a noun, and mean that it was a mere memorandum made by Mr Hall-Jones to remind him of something ho had to do. Just as the fate of Christendom was said to hang on the letter “I,” so the whole of the Marine Scandal hangs on where the accent should be placed. The Christian controversy was sultry, and so has been the Marino Scandal controversy. The Opposition insist on placing the accent on the last syllable; Mr Hall-Jones and his followers place it on the first, and there we leave it for the present. Now the commotion which has arisen over this will, no doubt, be treated with supremo contempt and ridicule in the near future, for a most absurd proceeding it has been from beginning to end; but the most laughable incident of it all is the conduct of Mr John Hutcheson. That gentleman was the first to expose the matter in the House, and, as it was in his own line of business, bo understood it thoroughly. But instead of giving the Government the benefit of the doubt, wherever there was room for doubt, ho at once jumped to the conclusion tliat both the Premier and Mr Hall-Jones were guilty of some heinous

crime. He told us that before the Premier left this colony “he sowed the dragon’s teeth, and they grew,” and insisted all along that Ministers were at fault. Captain Allman and Mr Allport were “ the whitest men in the colony,” and whenever ho could lay hands on any shred of evidence to prove it he diligently seized on it, and made the most of it. On the other hand he suppressed everything that told in favour of the Minister, and distorted, magnified, and misrepresented anything capable of being turned to their disadvantage. These were the peculiarities of Mr Hutcheson’s conduct. He suppressed and concealed everything which told in favour of the Government, and magnified and misrepresented anything he could rake up against them. The matter came before Parliament in a peculiar form. The Government had decided on submitting tho matter to a Royal Commission, but to this Mr Hutcheson and his friends objected, and on being defeated. Mr Hutcheson resigned his seat in the House, The grounds on which he resigned his seat were that he had given pledges to support the Seddon Government and had to break them. When a candidate for election in 18% he said “The gage of battle was —Seddon or Russell. That was tho clear and definite issue. There was no middle course. There was no rat party for him. He might a dumb dog, but be never was a rat and never would be. He would be a lojml, but not a servile follower of the present Ministry, which he was certain would bo the future Ministry. (Cheers). He would express his views upon any occasion as ho wished, and he would vote for tho Ministry to keep thorn in power whenever their existence was in jeopardy, when their going out meant the coming into power of a party who were going to undo all that had been done. (Cheers.) Could any of them point to a single act of legislation that this Ministry or tho Halhmce Ministry had done that was hostile to tho labor classes ? They could not. Hut he could tell of dozens of administrative acts that were for tho good of tho workers, and that were nob oven yet fully appreciated, though they woro ou the Statute Hook. In his candidature ho had neither a letter from tho Premier, nor a Royal writ, nor any other arrangement, written oi verbal “ and,” continued Mr Hutcheson, “ f am going to be loyal supporter of the big-hearted, broad-baokod man who has done so much for you.”

These were Mr Hutcheson’s sentiments when first elected, but ho had hardly warmed his seat when he became extremely refractory, and he has been going Horn bad to worse ever since. In the re" cent speech ho made to his constituents in May last he said; “ He promised the people of Wellington in 1896 to support the present Government. As far as their existence was concerned, ‘ho would cany out his bond if it cost him his conscience ’ to the end of tho term, but after that he was going to make a new departure.” When called on to vote ou tho No Confidence motiou recently he voted against tho Government and then resigned, thus breaking the latest pledge he had given. In May last ha promised to vote for the Government to tho end of tho session, early in July ho broke that pledge. That is Mr Hutcheson : that is tho o'ect of Wellington, and that shows what the electors of that city arc made of. Now what fault has Mr Hutcheson to find with the Government, to treat them iu this way ? He delivered a twu-hours’ speech in Tcmuka not long ago, ami our readers will remember what he said, lie almost shed tears in detailing tho many virtues of Mr Seddon, and how ho worked to got the Old Age Pensions passed ; ho had not a word to say against the laws passed by the Liberal party, and the only objection ho could rakoup was the Marino Scandal. Ho proved nothing; he suppressed everything, and when pressed to make a definite charge he could not do so. Ho has now been returned to Parliament again, and ho is happy, but what is the change ? Almost all his best supnorters have turned against him, and he is now tho representative of the unite I vote of Conservativism and Prohibition. Ho is all right for tho present, but how will ho turn out at the general election—will the Conservatives vote for him then 7 That remains to bo seen, but meantime what does it all mean ? It means this, that Mr Hutcheson is a vain, conceited man, on whom flattery exercises a wonderful effect. He has been cajoled and flattered and made much of by a certain clicpie in Wellington, while Ministers have been too sparing in applying soft-soap to him. That is tho meaning of it, but it moans more to Mr Hutcheson; it means that he has ruined his prospects, for even if returned by tho Conservatives at next election it will be the last time he will ever hold a seat in Parliament.