THE New Zealand Herald. SPECTEMUR AGENDO. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1871.

New Zealand Herald, Volume VIII, Issue 2423, 31 October 1871, Page 2

THE New Zealand Herald. SPECTEMUR AGENDO. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1871.

The subject of the disallowance of the Kaipara • Eailway Act in March last, it will be remembered, excited some little attention in Auckland at the time, in consequence of the interest then taken by the public in the prosecution of the work. Ifc was felt that a degree of uncertainty, if not of mystery, attached to the transaction. The Provincial Government volunteered no satisfactory information on the point, notwithstanding that they proceeded to advertise for tenders for the construction of the railway. It now appears that the ground on which the General Government, very much against their inclination, disallowed the Act, is precisely what we surmised at the time, namely the refusal of the Superintendent to undertake to have certain informalities in the bill remedied at the next sitting of the Provincial Council The matters referred to had respect to points of detail only, such as "road "levels" "crossings," and queations of public eafety. It may be asked

Why did not the Superintendent give the necessary assurance in this instance ? He had already undertaken a similar responsibility iu the case of the Liceusing Act, and again in the matter of the Education Reserves Management Act, either of which involved questions of considerable doubt and uncertainty, aud which only the Provincial Council had full power to deal with. Here was an obvious inconsistency. But the statement in the Superintendent's reply, as appears from the papers laid before Parliament, declining to remedy the defects in the Act, we think sufficiently remarkable ia itself. He says, "It is unneces- " sary to enter into any discussion as " to the objections raised to this Act, <: inasmuch, as it is not of the slightest " consequence whether the Act be " disallowed or not. It was passed " merely to pledge the Council '' to an understanding entered into "by myself with the Colonial " Treasurer, that £27,000 should be " expended on this work." " I see "no necessity, therefore, for giving " the undertaking required, as the " allowance, or disallowance of the " Act will not interfere ■with the pro- " gress of the work." Is it, then, to be understood that this is the deliberate opinion of the Superintendent of the province, and a lawyer beside, that " it is not of the slightest consequence " whether an Act of the Provincial " Couucil be disallowed or not ?" For what was it submitted to the Council, and why was the Act passed ? " Merely," Mr. Gillies replies, " to " pledge the Couucil to an under- " standing entered into by myself with " the Colonial Treasurer, that £27,000 " should be expended on the Kaipara, " Kailway." Surely this is a most extraordinary statement coming from the Executive head of the province,— that a money bill purporting to authorise and control an expenditure of over £40,000, under certain clearly defined conditions, carefully imposed by the Legislature in the interests of the public, should be looked upon as no better than so much waste paper, intended " merely " aa a device for committing the Council to an " understanding," entered into without its consent between the Superintendent and the Colonial Treasurer. Is it, then, " not of the slightest con- " sequence" whether this large sum of money, and, perhaps, as much more to the back of it, shall be expended under control of an Act of the Council, or without such control ? Are enactments of the Provincial Council, purporting to deal with large sums like this, of so little consequence in the estimation of the Superintendent, that their " allowance, or disallow"ance" makes "not the elightest " difference one way or other? Certainly, when it comes to this with Provincial Councils, it roust be admitted that their continuance is not only of no earthly value to the public as a safeguard in any way, but they bid fair to become institutions of corruption of a very dangerous description indeed.

It appears they are now required to act " merely" as a blind to an irresponsible Executive iii " pledging" the country, first to an " understanding" with one party, and again to a " con- " tract" with another, until the result is likely to be that the people, through, their representatives, will shortly have lost all power of control over the expenditure of the public money. This case of the Kaipara railway, from beginning to end, is one of the most remarkable instances we have yet heard of, of how the local Legislature may bo ignored and befooled at the will and pleasure of the Executive. In the first place, the Council became " pledged" to the work by the Superintendent, -without it 3 consent, to the extent of £27,000. Again, it is committed by the Executive to an engagement over which, as respects terms, conditions, and the nature of the work, it has not the remotest control whatever, the enactment under which control was assumed in the first instance having been, in the meantime, summarily disposed of by the Superintendent, with or without the concurrence of his Executive. It may be asked, what is now the position of the Council with respect to these engagements entered into by the Government in the name of the province ? Simply this, we apprehend, that it is bound by them, whatever interpretation may be put upon them now, irrespective of the conditions and limitations the Council was assumed at one time to have imposed by statute under its own direction. There is now no enactment of this nature on record to fall back upon, having the force of law, binding either on the contractor or the Executive Government. And if Mr. Gillies is to be taken as an authority, there is no necessity that there should be. " The Act," says he, " was passed " merely to pledge the Council to " an understanding entered into by " myself with the Colonial Treasurer, " that £27,000 should be expended on " the work." But is it of no consequence to the country how the money shall be expended? Is the Council professedly to be made use of" merely" as a catspaw to unloose the public purse-strings, that the money may flow out at the bidding of the Executive—" the allowance or dieallowance " of the Act not interfering with, or " affecting the progress of the work ?" We should say such another compliment was never before penned to a representative Assembly ! But even with _ Mr. Gillies' views of the uses a Provincial Council may be put to, is it not possible that he has overshot the mark in this instance in compelling the Colonial Government to the disallowance of the Kaipara Eailway Act ? If an Act of the local Legislature were necessary, or desirable, as a means of " pledging" the Council to the Superintendent's " arrangements " in another place," what becomes of the " pledge" in this case, when the Act itself has become of a piece of waste paper? Is it still binding on the Council, and at the same time " not " of the slightest consequence" to any one beside? We ahould eay that ■what -was sauce for the goose was

sauce for the gauder. If the Superintendent, in refusing to recommend certain formal alterations in the Kaipara Kail way Act, procured its disallowance in consequence, the Council, certainly, is no longer bound by its provisions iu any way, either as respects the Superintendent or his Executive. They cannot" tow elaitn its protection on the one hand, nor plead its authority on the other. Everything done uuder it is clearly void in law. What view the Council may take of the whole transaction by-and-by, it is not for us to say. But if its wishes, as expressed in the Acts it agrees to, are to be held as light\y for the future by other people, as they appear to be at present by the Superintendent, neither its censure nor approval in the matter would be likely to excite much curiosity with the outside publie. But we cannot think the opinion of the Council is yet held so cheaply. The eyes of the constituencies are upon it, and it cannot afford to overlook what is due to itself in a matter of so much importance as this, question of the disallowance of the Kaipara Eailway Act.

It is sincerely to be hoped that the bill brought into the Assembly by Mr. Vogel, to enable the Harbour Board of Auckland to obtain the funds necessary for the construction of docks for the port of Auckland, will not share the fate of a large majority of measures standing over until the latter end of the session. For years past this journal has urged upon the commercial community the desirability of taking some active steps iu promoting the construction of a dock for this harbour, and one attempt, zealously undertaken, of raising a dock company unfortunately resulted only in failure. The present opportunity is the most promising which has presented itself, and should prove generally acceptable to all interests concerned. As Mr. Vogel very justly remarks in his letter to the chairman of the Harbour Board, published in our issue of Wednesday, it can scarcely be expected that * the Board will be able to enter on such a work unless relieved of existing liabilities,and directly assisted by a money grant and otherwise. The Colonial Government accordingly proposes to hand over the site of the Britomart Barracks, and undertakes to relieve the province of tho cost of the Kaipara Railway, conditionally on a sum of £25,000 being advanced by the province to the Harbour Board for purposes of dock construction. It is also proposed to delay the period when the Act shall come into force until the Provincial Council shall have had an opportunity of releasing the Harbour Board from the indebtedness to the province <which it inherited. The position is one which should call for the utmost consideration, and a fair and equitable adjustment from all parties. The question of dock accommodation for Auckland is one which is not merely a matter of interest to the city and harbour, but to the province and colony. The latter is far-seeing enough to understand this, and offers fair proposals, but the province is even more directly interested, and should meet the matter in as fully a liberal spirit. Dock accommodation in Auckland means increased prosperity for the province generally ; it means consumption of timber and manufactured flax for the repair and fitting of vessels, both of which articles [ are produced in our up-country districts ; it means the drawing to this port of numbers of vessels which would otherwise never visit it, and which will become consumers of our country produce ; and in making trade brisker, and money more plentiful among the mechanics and artisans of Auckland, will bo creating again a market for our country produce. In most matters, and in this especially, the interests of town and country are one, and therefore when the time for discussion arrives, we trust that the Council will enter on the consideration of the subject in no narrow spirit. The Harbour Board has and importaut duties before it, and it is neither wise nor prudent to allow it to enter on its work encumbered with a legacy of debt. In the case of the City Board the province was wise enough to see the desirability, and even the necessity, of cancelling obligations even more justly due than those succeeded to by the Harbour Board, the only condition being that in reference to the construction of a market-house. In the case of the proposed remission of the indebtedness of the Harbour Board, we may safely affirm that the consideration received by the province in the construction of a dock for the "Waitemata Harbour is infinitely greater.

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND. The twentieth half-yearly meeting of the shareholders of the Bank of New Zealand was held yesterday, at the bankinghouse. Queen-street. The chair was occupied by Thomas Kussell, Esq., the President, who moved the adoption of the report. The report showed a balance available for division of £52,604 13s. Bd., and this sum is proposed to be appropriated thus : —Payment of dividend at the rate of ten per cent, per annum, £30,000; bonus of 5s per share, equal to £5 per cent, per annum, £15,000; leaving a balance to be carried forward of £7604 13«. Bd. We cannot do otherwise than re-echo the remarks of the Chairman, which were brief but to the purpose, and say that the character of the figures contained in the report call for neither explanation nor apology from us. It would, indeed, be difficult to suppose a more thriving and useful Institution than that of the Bank of .New Zealand, and we think that its shareholders are to be congratulated in proportion to the interest which they hold in it. Messrs. James Farmer and Samuel Browning (the retiring auditors), were elected directors in the place of Mr. James Williamson and Mr. C. J. Stone, and Mr. W. J. Taylor and Mr. C. J. Stone were appointed auditors.