The Daily Southern Cross.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIII, Issue 3133, 1 August 1867, Page 3

The Daily Southern Cross.

LUOEO, NON ÜBO. If % fyw b*«n nvbiFiiihad, y«t UttM t\f A thousnd bMOoaa from th« ip»rk I bor«.

TB USSDA 7, A UO UST I.

The battle between Provincialism and Centralism, as we understand it, is settled for the session, so far, at least, as the making it a test question for office. Our readers have doubtless perused the report of the debate on the financial resolution, proposed by Mr. Vogel, and supported by Mr. Williamson and the majority of the Auckland members. We have already expressed our opinion of that resolution, and are satisfied that the great bulk of our readers agree with us. The compact between Auckland and Otago appeared to be in substance this — that on condition of entrusting the management of native affairs in this provinoe to the Superintendent, Mr. Williamson, which would eaable him to bring his personal influence tobear upon the natives, and to buy waste land from them to carry out his pet soheme of settlement, Auckland was willing to relieve the Middle Island from all future or contingent liability on aocount of native affairs and defence in the North Island, referring the apportionment of the publio debt to the Superintendents or representative men of each province. This, as may be seen at a glance, was an extremely one-sided,bargain. The South had everything their own way. Auckland was to be represented by Mr. J. Williamson, and Otago by Mr. Macandrew and Mr. Vogel, which would seem as if our representatives believed their Superintendent to be a match for the combined intelligence of Messrs. Macandrew and Vogel. We are inclined to question the correctness of their estimate of these gentlemen ; but even were the Superintendent of Auckland as able as he was supposed to be, he would have had only one vote on the select committee, and Otago would have had two. Then, there was to have been Mr. Dillon Bell for Southland ; Mr. Moorhouse, for Canterbury ; Mr. Curtis, for Nelson ; and Mr. Eyes, for Marlborough. Granted that J. Williamson is a match for Messrs. Macandrew and Vogel, he certainly cannot be supposed to be able to cope with the combined wisdom of the six gentlemen representing the Middle Island and its interests ; but if, by an unusual stretch of imagination, we assume that he is equal to them all in tact and ability, that he could foil them in argument, and rival them in the manipulation of figures and his knowledge of public accounts, he could secure no better terms for the province of Auckland than if he were an ordinary mortal, because the report of the committee would have been carried by the majority, and there cannot be a doubt that its recommendations would' have been altogether favourable to the; Middle Island Of course, it would have been a light matter to them, and a graceful acknowledgment of the ability of the Superintendent of Auckland, to have recommended that that gentleman should be entrusted with the management of native affairs in this province, seeing that they, at least, would not be called upon to pay a shilling towards the expense. They would have secured the land revenue and a slice of our ordinary revenue; and we would have got the honour and glory of managing and paying for native affairs. Having secured the oyster for their own eating, they would magnanimously have thrown us the sheik. What puzzles us is how the majority of the Auckland members should have entertained such a proposal. They could never have thought for themselves. If they had exercised their own judgment they must have seen how suicidal it was to support such a resolution as that proposed by Mr. Vogel. Bub they did not think. Like a flock of sheep they appear to have followed their leader. Now, the policy of acting unitedly on all points in which the interests of the province are concerned we still uphold. We think it is a good policy ; but like other good things it is liable to abuse. And with all respect to the Auckland members, we think they abused it as much by their vote against the Government amendment on the goldfields .resolution,- and their blind support of the Vogel-Macandrew resolution, until it broke down in the presence of the intelligence of the House," as they did in 1866, when they were induced to confirm Mr. Stafford's Government, and- assist him in forging the chains of Centralism, by oppressive taxation. Having said thus much, and expressed this opinion of the conduct of our members, we have something else to say. It is rumoured, and we believe correctly, that the Auckland party is split up : that the majority feel indignant at the conduct of some of their numbers, and therefore thatthe Auckland vote will be a divided one hereafter. We should greatly regret if this were to be the case. It is quite true that they were unskilful log-rollers; but that is no reason why they should not act as one man for the good of the province. And by that, we do not mean, to unite to (promote any pet scheme or whim of any single member ', but to support those measures which, on mature reflection, and after calm discussion, they believe to be the best adapted to the circumstances and wants of the province. Of. these, "the foremost is, ; undouWjpdly,sthe Wtive Jft»cl lawa, . A wise and

} comprehensive measure, such as the Native Lands Act of 1865, modifying it so far as to legalise bond, fide arrangements -with the natives before the issue of certificate of title, j^nd applying the surplus fund acoruing on the fees to native purposes generally, and not regarding it as a land revenue of the province, ■would be generally acoeptable to both races in Auckland. The Auokland members may, by acting as one man on this point, succeed in passing a really good and workable Act ; and they may likewise succeed in repealing altogether the obnoxious East Cpasi Land Titles Investigation Act, which enaots that the lands of men engaged in rebellion shall be exempted from its operation; — a principle which, as we explained on the 27th, appears to be acted on by the Government, for they demand the lands of the loyal and friendly > tribes, and leave untouched the adjaoent territory belonging to notorious rebels; The Auckland members might likewise give effeot to the principle that it is undesirable for any Government — General or Provincial — to go into business as land-jobbers. They might also take steps for securing to this province the advantage of a four months' course of post with England by way of Melbourne and the Manukau, as an equivalent for the Auckland contribution to the Panama subsidy, i which is practically money wasted so far as Auckland is concerned. There are other questions on which the Auckland members ought to aot unitedly and persistently, as, for instance, the repeal or modification of the bankruptcy law. They might abolish imprisonment for debt, making it mandatory on the Inspeotor in Bankruptcy to prosecute at the criminal sessions any person who may have been guilty of fraudulent transactions in the course of trade. This would at once relieve the unfortunate from the dread of arrest, and protect him from perse* cution ; and it would not throw the onus of instituting criminal proceedings against dishonest traders on any of the creditors. It would be the duty of the Inspeotor in Bankruptcy, as a public officer, to lodge informations, and send suspected persons to the Criminal Court. Such a reform in the bankruptcy law woold have a salutary effect. The honest man would stand some chance against the rogue, which is not the case at present. If the Auckland representatives took up this question also, and applied themselves to its careful consideration, they would'be conferring a great boon upon their constituents, and the colony at large. Then, again, a simpler and cheaper plan for the transfer and registration of real estate ought to be considered, and if possible carried into effeot. The principle of Torrens's Act has been in part incorporated into our statutes; but ire want to go a great deal further in that direction than the law at present permits us. The fact is that the legal charges connected with the transfer of real estate are ruinous in a small and poor community like New Zealand. It has increased the number of lawyers, although we regret it has not in any sense tended to raise the status or improve the tone of the profession. Reform in that direction is very much needed j and the fifteen members from Auckland might do a great deal of good by bringing their views before the country, and pressing them upon the attention of the Government. In faot, we want the Auckland members to think for themselves, and initiate measures having for their object the improvement and good government of the country. We have indicated only a few of the questions whioh ought to be prominently discussed this session, and on which the Auckland members might very well agree. Of course, wetake itfor granted' that they are prepared to discuss the Tariff, and go thoroughly into the departmental expenditure of the General Government with a view to retrenchment. And now one word regarding Provincialism and Centralism. It appears to us that the champions of Provincialism did not in tlte least stand up for the principles involved. They appeared to think that by increasing the power of the Superintendents they were conserving provincial institutions. This is a very palpable mistake, however, and one which the inhabitants of the country will see without the aid of spectacles. The Government, on the other hand, in their amendment to the goldfields resolution, took what we believe to be the oorreot view of the matter. Whatever may have been their primary intention, they certainly did not show any hostility to provincial institutions, although they did indicate an intention of curbing the Superintendents. Instead of delegating the power to Superintendents, Government pledge themselves to pass an Act delegating the powers usually given to Superintendents to the Provincial Executive. In this way, they seek to place the controlling power in the hands of the Provincial Council, seeing that in every province now the principle of Ministerial responsibility is recognised. The Superintendent, as the Executive head of the province, will have the administration of the goldfields, " by and with the advice of the " Executive Council," and the Executive Council being responsible to the Provincial Council, it follows that the ultimate power rests with that body, which, in the aggregate, represents the local interests of the whole province. Tet we find in the division against that proposal the names of all the Auckland members in Wellington at the time, except Messrs. Carleton and Farmer, who voted with Colonel Haultain and the Government. The vote of the majority of our members we hold to be a mistake, because it was given against the integrity of provincial institutions and in favour of the irresponsibility of Superintendents, which has already worked no small degree of evil to the country. We need not, we think, occupy space by pointing out how the financial resolution proposed by Mr. Vogel, besides being inimical to Northern interests, went in the same direction as that in reference to the delegation of powers. We mean, of course, that its tendency was to increase the power of Superintendents, and not to enlarge and consolidate provincial institutions. The policy of the resolution is self-evident j and this policy we oppose. In saying this, we shall not be regarded as in any way being favourable to the Government. We simply admit that the Government appear to have understood the agitation in favour of Provincialism much better than the gentlemen who constitute the provincial Executives. The General Government perceived that Provincialism was a living, active principle ; they saw that- the Centralising policy could not presently Buceeed; and they resolved to concede the point at least for the present. Their concession was to the constituencies,however— -to theProvineial Councils and not to the Superintendents alone. This was a wise expedient ; yet singular to say, our .members, most of whom are strong Proviucialists, did not see that by enlarging

the powers of Provincial Councils, as "proposed, the Provincial party was being strengthened. They refused to think, took things for granted, and voted for increasing the powers of the Superintendents, which many amongst them had spent years in vainly trying to curb. 'This, as it appears to us, is a fair view of the position ofparties at the latest date; and we must admit that the Government have had by far the best of it. The Provinoialists have not been skilfully led, nor do they appear to have a common bond of union.