THE EXECUTIVE AND THE HUNDREDS ACT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1969, 27 August 1869, Page 2

THE EXECUTIVE AND THE HUNDREDS ACT.

To the Editor of the Evening Star. Sir —l am sorry that I should, in my last letter, have put queries to your correspondent “ Colonist,” and not have attempted to correct ‘ ‘ his impressions ” of Constitutional Government. However, as “ the gist of the whole question ” lies not in a “teapot ” hut in a short query, it is of little use discussing “Constitutional law.” “Colonist” asks;—“ Did the Superintendent in this particular instance so act (that is, support the Hundreds Regulation Bill) or did he not ” ? 1 answer, your correspondent “does not understand the matterfor the Superintendent voted in direct opposition to the expressed wish of the Provincial Council. I refer your correspondent to the resolution passed by the Council, moved by Mr J. L. Gillies, as an amendment to Mr Vogel’s proposals. Let him also read Hansard, and he will see Mr Macmdrew acknowledges that the Council have not been consulted. Your correspondent is, I fear, confounding “ The Otago Hundreds Regulation Bill ” with “ The Otago Waste Lands Act Amendment Bill,” the latter being based on resolutions passed by the Provincial Council on the motion of Mr Reid.

To •he other question put to me, I shortly reply, that while admitting the power—i.e., legal power—of the Superintendent to form an Executive, without the consent of the Provincial Council, I tell him that such a proceeding is a violation of all const tutional government {vide “Hearn’s Government of England,” p. 117, ct seq.). Oi course your correspondent needs not he informed, that it was with no “ selflsh motives,” that the runholders brought in and supported this Bill (yide Dr Buchanan’s speech), and no doubt he is also aware that this “storm in a teapot” is caused by selfish fanners. He does not require me to correct his expressions in these respects ; he has made the assertion and thst is sufficient proof to all those who “ have acted most disinterestedly.” He may allow me to inform him, however, that it was a Committee of the Legislative Council, composed not of farmers but squatters, that first recommended the com tax, and that those who supported the Hundreds Regulations Bill also voted for a tax on the “poor man’s daily bread.”— Yours, Ac. Another Colonist.