The Star. TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1874.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 1890, 24 March 1874, Page 2

The Star. TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1874.

The Press of this morning has an article bearing on Mr Eolleston's re-' election to the office of Superintendent of Canterbury for a further period of four years. Our contemporary finds room for congratulation in the- fact this particular election was a " walkover." The Press admits that, as a general rule, uncontested elections are tp be' 'deprecated," and says " an election well contested on public grounds has a very wholesome effect.' It ensures the freest discussion of the questions of the day from every point of view, stirs up the people to an interest in the management of their affairs, and invigorates the political life of the community. These are undeniable advantages." After such an. expression of opinion it is hard to understand by what procesa the Press arrives at the conclusion that in the case of the Superintendency election, opposition was undesirable. The Press asserts that Mr Eolleston could bave been opposed on no public grounds whatever — a statement manifestly open to question — and then rather unhandsomely goes on to. hint that those who endeavoured to get other gentlemen to stand as candidates : for the Superintendency in opposition to Mr Eolleston were actuated by an unworthy desire to spite and harass him, to set people by the ears, and to minister to the " lowest, kinds of party spirit," and winds up by patronisingly remarking that "it is creditable to the good sense of the gentleman who, according to rumour up to yesterday morning, was meant to be nominated, that he refused to allow himself to be made a tool for such unworthy purposes." We need scarcely say that we agree with our contemporary only in so far as his general remarks as to the utility of contested elections go, but with the rest we totally disagree, believing thafc had Mr Eolleston been opposed — not necessarily defeated — it would have been the better for the province, and none the worse for the Superintendent himself. Opposition would at the very least have had the effect of drawing from Mr Eolleston a fuller expression of hia views than yesterday, in the position of a successful candidate, he vouchsafed to the electors, when returning thanks for the honor they had done him. Ifc must not be undestood thafc we blame hia Honor-for acting us he did. On the contrary, we readily admit that under the circumcuinstances be did wisely. Election promises aro proverbially inconvenient. " Leasfc said, soonest mended," and on tbat principle Mr Eolleston was perfectly justified in doing no more than make a Hpeech of respectable length, containing — asjifc did — next door to nothing. If anybody is to be blanried it is those who, differing with Mr _E_plleston, and there are many who— the Prest's assertieu to the confcrarv notwitliKtanding—do differ with" him on important public questions, did not exert themselves to induce other candidates to come forward. We sincerely hope for tbeir own and for Mr Eollesfcon'a sake that they may bave no cause to regret the apathy they have displayed in respect to the presonfc election. Mr Eolleston enters upon a new lease of office with every advantage and opportunity to make h;s mark in the history of Canterbury and of the colony. Things generally are iv a prosperous and progressive condition. The education difficulty which existed afc the time he last took office ia settled, he has been relieved of an Executive with whom he could uot work, and hns now got one that, to use his own words, he is proud of working « it h, and which has the confidence of the people of the province generally. Iv short Mr Eolleston has got a good start. May he make the best use of it.