The Daily Southern Cross.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIII, Issue 3210, 30 October 1867, Page 3

The Daily Southern Cross.

LUOTO, ICON TOO. If I hart btan •zUainiihtd, y«t than ri~« ▲ thouund bwooni from tii* qpvrk I |h>m

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30.

The Otago Daily Times, m an article on tlie late session of the General Assembly, con-, trasts the effects of the legislation on Canter-, bury and Otago. In doing so, it makes the following remarks,, which, if correct, are of considerable importance to us in Auckland.) Our Dnnedin contemporary says :—: — ' Over the results of the session Otago has one. oonsolation, and that is, that it came off much better, than Canterbury. This once proud proviace, which looked down so on its neighbours, and wai accus- ; tomed to so haughtily vaunt it* superiority, has been literally- dismasted. The West Coast on one aide, and Gladstone and Timaru on the other, cut off from it, "Canterbury remains hut a wreck of its former sell. The hull still is sound, and there is little doubt that next session it will be refitted. Eren if the Government desire to remain in office, which is not altogether certain, seeing that notoriously, on many subjects, there is a want of an entire unanimity of opinion amongst its members, there is no chance of its succeeding in doing so. Mr. Fox will be out by the end of the year, and he has heralded his return by the declaration that he is more provincially disposed than ever. Dr. Featherston, it is understood, will, if necessary, take office next year; and Mr. Whitaker or Mr. Eussell will be in the Assembly prepared to coalesce with their old colleague. The Whitaker-Fox Government have an old score to settle with their successors. They are never likely to forget that these, when Mr. Whitiker and Mr. Fox were out of the Asstmbly and Mr. Russell only remained, charged thtm with reckless extravagance and reckless incompetency. Altogether, we are asserting what is notoriously the generally received opinion amongst public men, that the Government will only retain office till next session, and the Canterbury question will then come on afresh. The point which we desire to raise is this, namely, whether there is any foundation for the statement made by the Daily Times, that either Mr. Whitaker or Mr. Eussell will be in the General Assembly next session, prepared to join Dr. Featherston and Mr. Fox in ousting the Stafford Administration, in the interest of Provincialism ? The statement is broadly made; but we are inclined to question its accuracy. We do bo from the avowed opinions of Mr. Whitaker, who has declared himself opposed to ultra-provincialism. And we believe Mr. Bussell, as a politician, has not made common cause with the provincialists, except in so far as they agreed with him on the Separation question. Of course, circumstances may alter cases. It may happen that these gentlemen might see fit to change their views ; but at present we perceive nothing whatever which could warrant us in supposing that such a change of opinion is likely to take place. In fact, the whole line of action pursued by Mr. Whitaker in the House of Representatives, points to an entirely different conclusion. It was he who modified the Stafford Ministry, and restored it to office. It was Mr. Whitaker who kept Mr. Stafford in office during the remainder of the session of 1866 ; and it is notorious, that Mr. Bussell's influence, although not a member, was exerted to the same end throughout the session which has just been brought to a close. With these facts before us, we can hardly credit the statement that Messrs. Whitaker and Bussell will turn round upon the Government which they virtually made, and on whose behalf they exerted themselves so strenuously. This would be an inconsistency, indeed, ■which we would not attribute to either of these gentlemen as politicians. Then, with regard to the allusion to the treatment which the Fox-Whitaker Government received at the hands of their successors, we apprehend that it is too late in the day to settle that "old score." The Government in question had an opportunity to vindicate themselves before the House and the country. They shirked their duty iv that respect. The Fox-Whitaker Ministry were dumb when they ought to have spoken. They did not stand up and defend their policy, which was the policy of the Assembly, and in which a large majority would most certainly have borne them out; but they resigned before the Assembly met, and allowed the policy of 1863, together with the highly- important questions in dispute between themselves and the Governor and the Home Government, to be quietly shelved. They stood meekly "by when that>-policy was subverted ; and they initiated and acquiesced in a course which necessarily removed the seat of Government from Auckland. If the Whitaker-Fox Government had stood their ground and met the House, the seat of Government would not then have been removed; but their resignation left his Excellency no alternative, inasmuch as Mr. Weld made it the one condition of his attempting to form a Government, that the Beat of Government should be removed from Auckland. And the Governor had no alternative but to acquiesce. He was absolutely tied up to accept Mr. Weld's terms, because none of the old Ministry would take office, and no other politician was able to form a working Government. Therefore, we say that it is too late in the day to revive the old questions of 1864, any more than it is possible to rectify its miserable blunders. The settling-day has long since passed ; and if the settlement was not satisfactory, the members of that Government may thank themselves. They had the country with them.' The cards were in their hands to win; and if they threw up the game in a pet, that was their own lookout. Unfortunately, however, Auckland has suffered very seriouslyin consequence. Now, we take it, looking at the state of the colony, that the question of Provincialism against Centralism will not again come up in the Assembly. And for this reason. Nearly all tHe provinces in the colony are in embarrassed, circumstances. The colony has guaranteed the provincial debt ; the Coloflial Government will take care to make theinterest and sinking fund safe. What remains after satisfying the public creditor and providing for the efficiency of the public service, will not suffice to maintain the Provincial establishments. To keep these up to the point of "efficiency" to which the public has been accustomed, the Provincial Councils must impose direct taxes ; and we venture to predict that the people will not submit to additional taxation, merely that Provincial institutions should nourish. Therefore, Pro vinchlism must expire: it will be starved todeath, tnleeß, there are found $ose who are' so

enamoured of ft as to. discharge its various public duties in the provinces without fee or reward. Whether there are those who will devote their time and energy to this thankless task remains to be seen. We have our doubts: however, we shall soon see them resolved to a certainty one way or other in Auokland. Now, seeing that such is the proximate fate of Provincial institutions, we can hardly suppose that any party will be found to advocate their resuscitation next session, much less that Messrs. Fox, Featherston, and Whitaker will breathe on the dry bones, and clothe the lifeless and unsightly mass with flesh and sinews, and give it vitality. Provincialism has been worked to death. It has been destroyed by those who had its management. In every province there is the same tale of reckless extravagance, jobbery, and centralisation. The money was squandered at head-quarters ; the extremities were pinohed and impoverished. Such a system could not but collapse. The resources of the colony are not inexhanstible ; but they must needs be inexhaustible to stand the drain for G-eneral and Provincial purposes. We regret this, because Provincial institutions, wisely and prudently worked, might have become permanent, on account of their usefulness. They are advantageous in many respects ; but it is now idle to regret the miscarriage of the hopes founded upon them. We have to look forward to the future; and here we find that our contemporary, the Otago Daily ■limes, anticipates a change in the political war cry. Notwithstanding his prediction, in the article from which we quote, that the local institutions given to Westland and Timaru will not work, and that all Canterbury will demand a reinstatement of the province, he adds :—: — Indeed the whole colony will be anxious for a more stable form of government. There must either be the provincial form or something comprehensive to supersede it ; and as no obo has yet suggested in practical shape that something, we may expect that the provincial form will be re-asserted, and placed in • position from which, it will be free from constant tinkerings year after year. There is, of course, that other alternative for which the whole colony begins to long,* Separation. But in respect to Separation, now aT before, the Assembly caa only take the initiative steps. The sime voices that declare in favour of Separation will declare for a more immediate measure of relief, and we place Separation,outside the absolutely direct action of the Assembly, as a contingent benefit, to arise from other reforms, or by those reforms to be rendered unnecessary. Now, we say "that other alternative" of Separation is the only one open, to the colony, if the Middle Island insists .on .evading all liability in respect of the good government of the North Island. It is folly to suppose that because "neither the Timaru Board nor the " Westland Council of seven will have given " satisfaction," inasmuch as "the expenditure "will be chiefly on the towns of Timaru " and Hokitika, all Canterbury will be "ripe for reinstatement," and therefore, that Provincialism in its integrity will be restored. Yet that is the argument of the Daily Times, forgetting that if "the sur- " surrounding districts will be supremely " dissatisfied " with the expenditure on the towns of Timaru and Hokitika — that is, in their own neighbourhood — they would be ten times more dissatisfied if no money was spent in and around those towns, but that all was spent at Christchurch. There is no chance of Canterbury ever being reinstated : on the contrary, we believe that both it and Otago will be repartitioned next session. Centralising has been the bane of Provincialism; and out-districts having once tasted the sweets of local self-government, and the benefits of local expenditure, will not willingly surrender these. Such districts wil. most certainly havemany imitators. Therefore unless the present system of government froir Cook's Straits be approved of, there is nc rational or comprehensive scheme of government before the colony but that based or Separation. It would simplify the machinery of government, and do away with Provincia institutions ; and if Separation be noi granted, we shall have chronic discontent the fruits of costly mal-administration.