The Aelson Evening Mail. SATURDAY, APRIL 28, 1866. LOCAL NEWS.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume I, Issue 47, 28 April 1866, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. SATURDAY, APRIL 28, 1866. LOCAL NEWS.

PROVINCIAL COUNCIL. FRIDAY', APRIL 27, 1866. The Speaker took the chair at 1 1 a.na. All the members were present except Messrs. Dodson, and Akersten. The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed. MOTIONS. Mr. Burn moved, That in the opinion of this Council, his Honor the Superintendent; was fully justified in the course taken by him in the appointment of a constable at Motueka. He said after a careful reading of the correspondence he had come to the conclusion recorded in his resolution. He did so to prevent the correspondence becoming a dead letter. He contended the Superintendent had full control over the appointment of constables in any district, and denied that the Superintendent, as Mr. Oliver had stated, had too much power placed in his hands. In this case the magistrates had quarrelled, which was an additional justification ofthe course taken by the Superintendent. Mr. Simmonds complained ofthe manner in which Mr. Oliver had prejudged the question during the unusual course he took, and censured his want of courtesy to the council generally. The council were fully justified in adopting this resolution. He seconded the motion. The Provincial Secretary characterised the course Mr. Oliver took, as a most unfair one. He prejudged the case, and then asked the council to appoint a committee. He then gave a history of the transaction, and mentioned the reasons assigned by the magistrates for the course they took, the particulars of which have already been published. He said that Constable Boyes was recommended by a great number of the most respectable inhabitants, including the representatives in the council and five magistrates, of whom Mr. Vivyan was one; two "were acting magistrates. A letter was also received from Mr. Dutton expressing the objection of the magistrates to Boyes, and recommending* Talbot. This document was signed by ten persons, three of whom had signed the previous recommendation. The Government at a loss to know how to act, and after a further correspondence, made enquiries at Motueka, which resulted in favor of Boyes, and Mr. Vivyan denied having recommended Talbot ; on receiving the threatening letter which suggested the appointment of some other person, the Government took no notice of it. The Provincial Secretary replied to the objections made against Boyes, andsaid they applied equally the protege of the magistrates, Talbot. He considered the magistrates had acted improperly in interfering with the prerogative of the Superintendent, and then resigning under the influence of disappointment. # Mr. Oliver censured the attempt to pass a definite resolution atter refusing the investigation he attempted to carry. It looked like a dread of disclosing the real facts, and it was an attempt to bolster up the Executive, a prostitution of free institutions, and an insult to common sense. A course like this proved the absurdity of the provincial system. He was proud to be a representative of the people, but not to sit in a Council which repressed free inquiry and to carry out party predilections, sacrificed the principles of truth and justice. The resolution was against facts and common sense, an attempt to stifle free inquiry and a burlesque on popular institutions. It was a strange coincidence that the mover aud seconder of this strange resolution should be the members proposed to be added to the committee. He again reviewed the facts of the case, and contended that the complaining magistrates had given good reasons for the course they took. He characterised the reply of the Provincial Government to the magistrates, as most insulting, offensive, and overbearing, ancl not likely to encourage country magistrates^ in the discharge of their gratuitous and onerous duties. He was not certain that it would not be his duty to brin"" a resolution so one-sided, absurd, and damaging to provincialism, before the House of .Representatives. He objected to these officers being appointed by the Superintendent, and contended that so paltry a bit of patronage might safely be left to the bench of magistrates. He protested against the resolution as a magistrate, a member of Council, and of the House of Representatives. , Mr. McMahon pointed out the inaccuracies and contradictions in the speech of the last member, and asked him if he considered his threatening to strike Mr. Stanley at the polling booth, was conclusive of his fitness for the magisterial office. [Laughter.] Mr. Oliver said, he was not a magistrate when that little affair happened. [Great laughter.] Mr McMahon amused the Council by reading documents signed by country magistrates, and which proved that their education had not been cared for. In one case the magistrate complained of constable Boyes for not correcting his ungrammatical style. It was absurd to suppose that Mr. Oliver's pet magistrates inspired either confidence; or respect, and the sooner they were displaced the better would it be for the country districts. Mr. Curtis said, whilst giving a general support to the policy of the Superintendent, he could not support this resolution. It would be improper to pass

this resolution after having refused to appoint a committee of inquiry. He thought Mr. Oliver quite in order in stating the case when calling for an inquiry, as no member called for an inquiry unless he thought an injury had been done. On the merits of the case he opposed the resolution. He held it was the duty of the magistrates to appoint the constable and of the Superintendent to confirm the appointment. If an official recommendation was made by a majority of magistrates, it was the duty ofthe Superintendent to refuse to appoint a person to whom they had objections. As a constable was required to look after the public houses, it *was not remarkable that a person under the influence of public houses should be strongly objected to. He read a letter from the Colonist ofthe 24th April, from the Native Commissioner, complaining ofthe public houses of Motueka, and referred to the licensing meeting at Nelson, where Mr. Mackay made a similar complaint. Had an inquiry been instituted, other facts would have been disclosed; such as the fact that the Superintendent had allowed political feeling strongly to influence him. The Superintendent went to Motueka for the purpose of damaging the election of the chairman of the bench of magistrates, and the conduct was most unconstitutional and unprecedented, especially as he was not an elector of the district. In the town also the Superintendent had exerted a coercive and intimidating influence during the election. On these grounds he could not support the resolution before the House. He complained that the memorial before the House was not a literal copy of the one presented. Not wisliing to give a direct negative to the resolution, he would move the previous question. Mr. Baigent seconded. The Provincial Solicitor explained that the discrepancies between the memorials arose from the clerk following pencil marks which he thought were to be copied. It was competent for the Council to have an inquiry or not, without rendering themselves liable to a charge of wishing to frustrate it. The Government acted on the documents before them, and the Council could do the same. The Government had no objection to an inquiry, but they resolved to abide by the decision of the Council, who held the Government responsible for all appointments. They had not always found the magistrates unanimous, or willing to assist the Government in the appointment of constables. In this case, the Government were compelled to use their discretion. As to the Superintendent using his influence for electioneering purposes, there was another version of the matter, an expression of opinion being construed into action in a particular direction. The refusal of the Superintendent to give Talbot the office was not likely to influence his vote at the election. It was the magistrates who were political rather than the Superintendent, and the egotistical twaddle of Mr. Oliver referred to almost every conceivable subject but the resolution before the Council. He denied that the appointment of Messrs. Simmonds and Burn was for party purposes; he proposed them on the ground that Mr Oliver's committee was not a suitable one. As the district constables were not the tools of the magistrates, but had to discharge duties for the Government, it was incumbent on the latter to appoint proper persons, even should the magistrates be displeased with them. The Government were anxious to work with the magistrates, but they would not consent to employ incompetent men, even at the risk of incurring magisterial displeasure. He was certain that Mr. Auty would be glad to get rid of the Maoris altogether, and that there "was not a better-conducted house in the province. Mr. Simmonds explained that he seconded the motion without premeditation, and said the select committee would have been granted had not Mr. Oliver cast such imputations on the Council and the members generally, imagining that the circumstance of being dubbed J.P. warranted him iv assuming infallibility, and casting his aspersions right and left on all who differed in opinion from him. Mr. Oliver denied that anything he had said could be construed into a desire to cast imputations on any member of the Council. He simply objected to Messrs. Simmonds and Burn, on the ground that they were not so likely to act as some other members. Mr. Parker, for the credit of Motueka, explained the course the inhabitants had taken, and denied the right of the magistrates to complain of a man who had given unqualified satisfaction for nine years. The conduct was not candid nor gentlemanly, and this was the conclusion the public had come to. Having reviewed the conduct ofthe Motueka magistrates at considerable length, shown that the council had vested in the Superintendent, the power of appointing constables, asserted that the whole affair was a political move, and affirmed that the appointment had given unmixed satisfaction to the public, Mr. Parker concluded by saying the council were justified in refusing an inquiry to Mr. Oliver, unless the whole facts of the case could have been carefully gone into. The Provincial Secretary alluded to the threat of Mr. Oliver to take the question to the GeneralAssembly, and denied a statement of Mr. Curtis, that there was a majority of magistrates in favor of Talbot. Mr. Kingdon said he was sorry the inquiry was disallowed. Unless the magistrates had called a ' special meeting to recommend a particular person, the Superintendent could not act otherwise than he had done, after consulting the Motueka inhabitants as to their wishes in the matter. Mr. F. Kelling said, after hearing the debate, he would vote for the motion. The assertion of Mr. Oliver that the Council was giving up its constitutional rights, was all nonsense. He shoved that the Superintendent could not have acted in any other manner under the circumstances of the case. Mr. Gibbs expressed his regret that the motion was brought forward, and would not defend the Superintendent or the Magistrates,