MESSRS. FOWLDS AND NAPIER RE CAPTAIN RUSSELL'S RESIGNATION OF LEADERSHIP.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11713, 24 July 1901, Page 7

MESSRS. FOWLDS AND NAPIER RE CAPTAIN RUSSELL'S RESIGNATION OF LEADERSHIP.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— the Addressin-Reply speeches of Messrs. Fowlds and Napier (vide Herald, July 5) there is a characteristic difference in their treatment of the " unprecedented incident," the definite resignation of leadership by Captain Russell. Mr. Napier, as an essentially party man, an avowed and zealous Seddonite, deprecates it as "such a confession of failure,"' declaims the functions of a constitutional Opposition, and, assuming' judicial tone, accuses the retiring leader of "an abandonment of duty." After-reflcction may have suggested to Mi. Napier that a loader who year after year led on and maintained a gallant fight against overwhelming odds, and who threw himself into his uncongenial work with unpretending courage, and with unfailing tact and courtesy, and thereby rendered unselfish and invaluable service to the colony, olaimed more respectful consideration. Let Mr. Napier render similai service, and display the same freedom from lust of place, and pelf, and power, and his authority and right to the seat of judgment will be less obsoure. Mr. Fowlds, on the contrary, utters no word of animadversion or hint of disloyalty to duty, but he sees in Cap tain Russell's re- : signation the necessity and tils'? opportunity for the members to choose who should bo the executive. I submit that this is a most 1 reasonable conolusion, that an " elective Executive" is a "consummation devoutly to be wished." For by this " unprecedented incident" organised party opposition ceases to be; a new appeal is made to personal ro--1 spon!.ihility; it is this moral tonic the House 1 so urgently needs; it is no longer a struggle 1 between opposing parties, but a junction and 1 blending of parties seeking to discover, and | to enact the wisest measures for the general , good. Never did this young colony need ' such striving, nor is there any measure that would so wisely organise oi so surely 'secure the bes? ends of Government as an elective Executive. It would be nothing less than a j moral revolution. It would involve a radi- ' eal legislative reform. It would shift the specific gravity of th, House from the nar- , row loyalty to a party, to the largei loyalty • to principle; from the support of "me and my party" to the support of the bost men the.-

House could-Belocfc; from th& spirit of personal lordship for party ends to the spirit of service under the sovereignty of the House and v the constituencies; from the waxing tyranny of autocracy to the governance of men who assume no "divine rights," but, knowing whose servants they are, how the House -that: elected can also dismiss, will retain as they, gained their position, by their ability, their fidelity, and their disinterested devotion. An elective Executive would for over close the annual - exhibition ftlafc makes colonial legislation a weariness and a ridicule; the printing and introduction of a multitude of ■unfledged v " Bills," ' knowing that for the most part they will bo on show to the end of the session, and then have their necks wrung! , For it would be of the very first purpose of : such an Executive to determine and limit the deliberations and work of the session to the most essential and important measures; to resist the frittering, away of a session by snap-fights over a thousand local and minor matters, better left to local jurisdiction and effort, and confine it to the ■larger and ' legitimate vocation of a central government. Your space forbids more, but with your permission I may resume this subject.—l am, etc., Edwin Cox. July 23, 1901.'