THE EXECUTIVE AND THE HUNDREDS ACT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1968, 26 August 1869, Page 2

THE EXECUTIVE AND THE HUNDREDS ACT.

To the Editor of the Evening Star. Sir—Your correspondent, “Another Colonist,” instead of attempting to correct the “impression” under which my letter was penned, prefers to submit a string of (for the most part irrelevant) questions. He first asks “Is Mr Macandrew a member of the General Assembly because he is Superintendent of Otago?” To which I reply, certainly not, if “because” is intended to stand for “by virtue of his election as Superintendent of Otago,” 4c. Your correspondent next asks:—“ Must an Executive agree with a Superintendent in every action which he may take as a member of the Colonial Legislature? ” To which I reply, certainly not absolutely in “every action,” but most certainly yes in every action taken by him in compliance with the expressed wish of the Provincial Council. And here is the gist of the whole question— Did the Superintendent in this particular instance so act, or did he not? As I wrote in my last I repeat now, “If understand the matter,” he did. If I had been misinformed, it would surely have been easy for “Another Colonist ” to put me right. Your correspondent’s next {“ round 0 ”) question being of similar import needs no further reply. 1 am next asked by your correspondent — “ Suppose the Executive resigned, would it be constitutional in the Superintendent to appoint another without consulting the wishes of the Provincial Council ?” Surely “jAnother Colonist” is not so ignorant of constitutional law as to doubt the power of the Superintendent to appoint the members of his Executive Council upon his own sole responsibility, and to carry on the work of the Province during a recess, and till the Provincial Council, by a distinct vote, or otherwise express or refuse their “ confidence” in or to the Executive so appointed. I am happy to learn from the concluding portion of your correspondent’s letter, that I was mistaken in supposing that self-interest had anything to do with the storm of opposition now raging. Doubtless, the “farmers,” as your correspondent puts it, have acted most disinterestedly, not only in opposing the Hundreds Act, but also in not opposing the proposition to tax the poor man’s “ daily bread,” for the protection of their own special “ interest.”—Yours, 4c., A Colonist,