The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1867.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2135, 24 October 1867, Page 2

The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1867.

The purest gratification that can be felt by a public writer is the sense that he has touched a chord in another's feelings which vibrates in answer to his efforts. That gratification we may fairly claim as our own. The mass of correspondence addressed to this journal on the subject of reform in our local government shews that the public appreciate our efforts in that direction, and are earnestly desirous of joining in the work. Such thoughtful expressions of sympathy on the part of the public are of infinite help, and more than make up for the idle insinuations of insincerity and interestednesß with which we are assailed by those who chiefly desire the destruction, and not the reform, of Provincial institutions.

It may seem, perhaps, to some of our readers not altogether wise on our part to notice some of the foolish accusations which are levelled, against us so freely from all sides, and with additional force since we have enlarged upon the necessity of a sweeping reform being initiated from within the Province, if we intend to preserve our local independence. But we must remind them that the constant repetition of false statements at last carries a conviction of their truth in the minds of those who do not take the trouble to enquire into facts. In generalising upon the charges most frequently brought against us, we fiud they may be summed up, as, first, that we are Mr Moorhouse's organ, and second that we are insincere in our advocacy of reform, and are really attempting Borne underhand game in the interests of the Government. The first of these charges, which is of very old date, has, of course originated in the support given by us to Mr Moorhouse on more than one occasion, at the election for Superintendent. We gave that support on perfectly independent grounds because we thought, and still think that Mr Moorhouse was the best man for the post. We believed then, and still believe that Mr Moorhouse is a very able man, and that he is actuated by a most sincere and patriotic desire to serve the Province. But to suppose from this that we occupy the position towards Mr Moorhouse which is commonly understood by the words " his organ" is simply and entirely incorrect. We may state, once for all, that neither while Mr Moorhouse was out, nor while he was in office, have we held any political communication with him or his Government, and that, as a rule our views have as often been opposed to those of himself and his Government as otherwise. So much for the charge of having been Mr Moorhouse's " organ." In the pre sent crisis, we are acting with equal independence, and are totally ignorant of the views either of Mr Moorhouse or his Government on the question of Provincial reform. As to the charges of insincerity and duplicity we are placed in a more difficult position. It is hard to disprove allegations which are themselves unproved, and which indeed are only delivered in a prophetic tense, We can only ask our accusers to be patient and to wait and judge for themselves as to our sincerity. We must remind them that both before and during the last session of the Provincial Council we persistently advocated the strongest measures of retrenchment, when the financial position of the province was sound and strong as compared to what it is now; and that we advocate a sweeping reform now because the events of the last three mouths have demonstrated its urgent necessity.

Among the letters recently addressed to us on the subject of reform, one fro.tn " Proviueialist," which appeared in our yesterday's issue,deserves notice, The writer is impressud with the necesity for reform from with ill, but expresses a belief that the Government will never carry out the necessary measures because they will have to abolish themselves by so doing, lie goes on to say that he has no faith in the General Government, and thinks

thai: the Superintendent and Provincial r Council could and should do more to 1 advance the interests of the Province i than the former, but that if Provincial 1 mstitutions are not at once reformed e ho would sooner have the demoralizing i I effects of bad government at a distance ' —that is, at Wellington—than in our i midst. In conclusion," Pi'ovincialisii" thinks the Council ought to bo called together at one®, and the expenditure reduced, if Provincial government is to be maintained. Now, we have reason to believe that " Proviucialist" expresses views which aro just now very generally entertained. The feeling is almost universal that the Government establishments must bo cut down, so as—to use a popular phrase—to suit the times. The revenues of the province, from one cause or another, have temporarily disappeared, and the public expenditure is being met at the present time from advances made by the Government bank against the unrealised portion of the loan. Every day, therefore, that is allowed to lapso without meeting the case by a large reduction of expenditure a fresh injustice is being committed upon the public, and upon the public creditor. Funds, which were raised for the special purpose of investment in reproductive works, are being daily diverted to meet the ordinary eipenses of government. Our correspondent is right, therefore, when he thinks that

the Council should be summoned for an early day in order to consider the Btepp necessary to be taken in the present crisis. We cannot too strongly protest against the delusion of living upon our capital while hoping for better times. It is a foolish and dishonest course. The difficulty which "Provincialist" sees in the way of the necessary reform being initiated by the Government is a strong one. It must always be a hard task for Government to abolish itself. In fact, we doubt if the experiment has ever yet been fairly carried out. But we hardly think our correspondent has proved that such an extreme measure is necessary. In another article we have pointed out how certain economies may be effected, and further examination of the subject will probably shew that by reductions and amalgamations still greater savings may be carried out. We refuse to believe, without absolute

proof, that the Executive will not lead the way in these reductions; but, as we have before said, the public must

not expect that men will do their work for nothing. It is true that under the compulsion of national bankruptcy an Executive might be found sufficiently patriotic to take the work upon themselves for a time without pay. But it would not be awise arrangement, unless under those exceptional circumstances. Assuming, then, that it will not be necessary for the Government to abolish itself, but only to reduce the number of officials, both high and low, then we say that if those in authority decline or hesitate to do what is required, the remedy is simple—it at once becomes the duty of the Council to choose men who will.

There is one p'oint upon which we differ from " Provincialist." He says that if Provincial institutions are not speedily reformed and simplified, he will bejjrepared to throw all their privileges into the hands of the General Government a Government which he considers to be neither very wise, very high minded, nor very incorrupt. Surely, this is not very wise or very high-minded on the part of "Provincialist." We recommend him in all good faith to study the remarks of Mr Godley upon political self-dependence, quoted by another correspondent in a recent issue of this paper. They apply exactly to the case in point, and will tend to nerve the failing spirits of many others besides a " Provincialist."