PROVINCIALISM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 12817, 17 March 1905, Page 4

PROVINCIALISM.

Whenever Auckland asks for an equitable expenditure of public money, it is forthwith accused of provincialism by those interested in the maintenance of the existing injustice. The Lyttelton Times, a Ministerial organ, now makes this antiquated charge because of the comparisons which we have made between the spending of pounds in cstland and of pence in Auckland. It regards this comparison as worth mentioning only "for the light it throws upon the unfortunate : provincialism which persists in some parts of the colony;" But it is not a question of provincialism at all, but of public justice. In Otago Sir Joseph Ward may persuade his audiences that they have the best of all possible Governments by enlarging upon the way in which money ought to be spent upon the unprofitable Otago Central and by pointing out that it ought to be the first on the list for completion ; in Canterbury, Mr. Seddon may excite provincial feeling on behalf of the Westland connection, and tell the provincial public how necessary it is to back the Government in its desire to push the work on in preference to other lines ; and in Westland, disproportionate amounts may be expended, on a few thousand colonists ; but nobody in the South calls this provincialism because they all get more than their fail* share at our Auckland expense. When we criticise this notorious Seddonian policy we are "provincial," it appears. We ought to be " national" and pay our taxes unmurmuringly; they can be "provincial" and squander the public revenues—to which Ave contribute so heavily—without any regard to our local interests. This is the true Ministerial attitude, which always sees the public value of Southern railway construction, but never admits any equivalent public value in Northern railway construction. The South has such a disproportionate railway mileage foxits area, its population, and its production that it cannot possibly offer the same returns for extensions as the North, where settlement has run far ahead of railway communication. The South always explains the unprofitable character of much of its railway system by alleging that profit, will come when lines are extended to a paying point, and says that we are "provincial" because we refuse to wait quietly while these entirely problematical " paying points" are being reached. We assert that as the North bears its share, and more than its share, of public expenses and public expenditures, including interest on loan, and as it is able to show country through which practically every mile of new railway will be found profitable, we have a right to a fair share of those public services for which we are unfortunately compelled to rely upon the Colonial Government, but which we find concentrated in the South to our loss and our legitimate dissatisfaction. The Lyttelton Times is indignant because we have shown how Westland is treated and how Auckland is treated. Will it be as indignant with the Premier for having warned our Northern electors that they must expect the Government to. spend the public funds in constituencies that return Government candidates to Parliament, not in those that, return Opposition candidates? We hardly think it will, for only the securing of a Government majority can keep in existence that " provincial" system by which Westland and the South get much more than their, fair share while Auckland and the. North get far less than their fair share.