SATURDAY, MAY 2, 1874. THE RECENT DUNEDIN ELECTION.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume I, Issue 53, 2 May 1874, Page 6

SATURDAY, MAY 2, 1874. THE RECENT DUNE DIN ELECTION.

Contrary to the general expectation of prominent politician?, the constituency of Dunedin has rejected Mr. Bartov, and chosen Mr Wales to fill the seat in the Houso of Representatives, vacated by Mr. Bath gate. The contest was not about principles. On these the candidates are of the sairie mind. Both are advocates of the Public Works and Immigration policy ; both are in favour of secular education, and opposed to denominational schools, supported or aided by the State ; both wish to see the monopoly of the Water Works Company put an end to, and are in favour of banding over the Works to the Corporation of the City, at a fair valuation ; both are in favour of settling the people on the 1 md. There was nothing therefore to choose between them. On political principle, one candidate was as good as another. The friends of the Vogel Administration, however, would have preferred tlie return of Mr. Barton ; and indeed this is not surprising, inasmuch as this gentleman is in favour of keeping Mr. Vogel in power for an indefinite period. Mr. Barton's reasoning on this point is adroit and somewhat peculiar. His idea is that Mr. Vogel, as a reward for having initiated the grand policy of great public works and of a species of exodus from tho old country, should be subjected to a kind of punishment. The Premier's nose is to be kept to the grinding stone of hard work for a great number of years, lest His Honor should by any chance escape his responsibility, and the condemnation inseparable from failure. Mr. B art. on is a supporter of the Vogel Government, but he is a follower of the savage kind, who is prepared to use the whip pretty freely in order that the Premier may be kept well up to his duties and responsibilities, and prevented from bolting or through any chance disengaging himself of the harness. This, to our mind, is a little too hard, a little too exacting. The country at large is profiting by this grand Vogel policy ; I and really it only seems reasonable that our prominent men of all parties should be compelled t> share in the great labours and responsibilities inseparable from it. But this is not Mr. Barton's view. He will not allow " Juuus Vogel to escape from his responsibilities ! " It looks as if Mr. Barton feared failure, and also feared that Mr. Vogel should unfortunately escape well-deserved chastisement if another Premier or another Government should take his place. Nolens vole.ns Mr. Vogel, according to Mr. Barton, must be compelled to hold the Premiership till his policy shall have been either a «-reat success, or a great failure. There is wisdom and statssj manship in this, we must suppose. We rr.ust'confess, how- ! ever, our inability to see either. But one thing is pretty I clear that the most devoted admirer of Mr. Vogel, or the most ardent place-hunter, could not possibly hit upon a plan better calculated to prolong the existence of the present; Government, than this suggested by the very ascetic politician — Mr. Barton. j The constituency of Dunedin seems to think so, too. Mr. Barton's rejection by the electors of Dunedin, was a surprise to many. FOl a long time previous to the day of nomination, this gentleman had the field to himself, no other candidate appeared, or was even spoken of; in fact, it wasthought that he would have been elected without a contest. j And when on the day of nomination lh\ Wales was proI posed, the friends of the former gentleman looked upon tlia

proceeding as a good joke. The result has proved how greatly they were mistaken. Under these circumstances, it is not to be wondered at that the defeated party should cast about for reasons to account for defeat, nor is it surprising to find them suggesting reasons calculated to raise a prejudice against their successful opponents. Such a mode of action gratifies wounded feelings, and not unfrequently lays the foundation af a telling policy for the future. Speaking of this election, the ' Evening Star ' says, " One thing is suggested by the result of yesterday's election, and of certain reports that have reached us ; and it is worthy of serious consideration. We have all heard of block-voting under ecclesiastical influence. There is good reason to believe that to a certain extent that was resorted to. We do not think Mr. Wales was a paity to it, nor even perhaps consulted ; but it is exerted occasionally to keep a talented opponent out of Parliament, as well as to put a less dangerous one in ; and Mr. Barton seems to have been more feared than Mr. Wales " A report to this effect reached us also. We heard that the Deacons and Elders of certain churches had exerted themselves very much indeed in favor of one of th<? candidates. But we cannot see any crime in their having done so. They broke no law, human or Divine ; trespassed on no man's rights or privileges, arid they only did what their opponents were doing all over the city, viz., exerted themselves in favour of their friend. There is really no reason ■why their canvassing should have called forth the animadversion of our contemporary ; or incited him to threats, which we have no doubt will prove impotent. The ' Evening Star ' continues, "It is advisable these things should be borne in mind in anticipation of another election, for it is absolutely necessary that every elector should be left politically and religiously free in the exercise of his vote. A system of com bination on one side will render it necessary on the other." Certainly. And it was the system of coaibination on the part of Mr. Bakton's friends, that rendered combination of Mr. Wales' friends necessary. But what was right and proper on the p-irt of the former, was extremely wrong on the part of the latter ; more particularly as it appears ecclesiastical persons had the audacity to exercise their rights as citizens. The ' .Star ' is innately intolerant of ecclesiastics. They should not dare to opeu their mouths except indeed in praise aud advocacy of the friends of the ' Evening Star ' and of Mr. Vogel. To exert themselves in this direction would of course be most reasonable and patriotic, and not at all censurable ! But to oppose Mr. Barton, who was resolved to do his best to keep Mr. Vogel in power for — ever? — was a heinous offence, to be punibhed by political ostracism at least.