New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1871. THE WEEK.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 39, 21 October 1871, Page 11

New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1871. THE WEEK.

In the report of Friday’s parliamentary proceedings, published in our present issue, -will he found the debate which took place in the Mouse of Representatives on the second reading of the Law Practitioners Act Amendment Bill, upon which we feel constrained to make a few remarks, as the question involves a great constitutional principle, or rather, we should say, a principle of eternal justice, which was violated in the act now sought to be amended, Mr O’Rorke, who had charge of the amended bill, said the House had travelled beyond its legitimate functions in passing an ex post facto law, that is to say a law having a retrospective effect. The House did more than this. It proved its indifference to that principle of justice which it was pretending to uphold, and to that spirit of fair play which is one of the finest qualities in the English character. When the Election Petitions Bill was before the House, Mr Stafford said, “ it was improper that persons should be brought into a position which did not exist when past acts of theirs were committed.” The remarks are strictly applicable to the present case, The House passed a law repugnant to the feelings of Englishmen, and which the United States Congress is expressly forbidden to do by the Constitution. Under the United States Constitution neither Congress nor the State Legislatures can pass ex post facto laws. The question is not whether Smythies was guilty of the offence for which he was vindictively prosecuted, but whether the House was not guilty of a grave offence in passing a retrospective clause, with the special object of meeting this particular ease, and over-riding a decision of the judges of the Supreme Court. The character of Smythies has nothing to do with the question. It is not the individual, but the principle violated in his person, which requires to be upheld. “The vilest wretch/’ Bays Lord Brougham, “ becomes as much entitled to the protection of the wise and good as if one of themselves were the object of persecution, the instant that a violation of a constitutional principle is attempted in his person.” Smythies’ is called a painful case. To our thinking the House put itself in a pain*

ful position in passing a retrospective act, but not in honestly endeavoring to rectify the error they had committed. If the bill should fortunately pass the House, and go to the Legislative Council, we beg to refer members to sections nine and ten, Article I, of the Constitution of the United States, in which it will be seen that all ex post facto laws are expressly prohibited. We heartily endorse the opinion expressed by Mr Vogel, “ that the hon. member who introduced the amended bill deserved the highest approbation for having done so, and had earned the right to their sincere thanks.”

In common with the majority of the colonists of Hew Zealand we cordially approve of the public works policy of the Fox-Vogel administration, but that does not render us bound to approve of all their acts and proceedings. When we expressed our disapproval in our last of the Government of Provinces Bill we were not aware of the fate it had met with at the hands of the House. It afforded us much sincere gratification to find that one of the most consistent supporters of the Government —Mr O’Borke—had been the primary cause of this unconstitutional measure being so quickly rejected. The Ministerial side of the House will arise in public estimation by the bold and consistent course they took on this occasion.

A very unpretending measure has this week been considered by the House of Representatives, which, in operation, will prove of more practical benefit if passed into law than measures of much greater magnitude and pretensions. It is entitled “An Act to provide system of appealing against the rates imposed under the authority of Ordinances passed or to be passed by Provincial Legislatures.” This bill is rendered necessary in consequence of a decision of the Court of Appeal that acts passed by Provincial Councils constituting courts of judicature are ultra vires. It will in effect validate the Education and Highways Acts passed in the last session of the Provincial Council of this province, which we are exceedingly glad to find have not been disallowed by his Excellency. With the Highway Board 3 Bill and the Provincial Rates Appeals Bill there will be at least powers conferred on education and road boards necessary for the efficient discharge of their duties. We regret the withdrawal of the Education Bill by the Government, as we see a prospect of obtaining at last a good provincial law on the same subject, which by the legislation of the present session will have a chance of being enforced. It is not a very gratifying fact to find by the last census returns that the population of both sexes and of all ages in the province of Wellington who are able to read and write is proportionately less than in any other existing province in Hew Zealand. We also find that but little more than half of the children between the age of five and fifteen go to a day school, while but little more than a third of these, or only 888 in the whole province, attend Government schools. When the new Education Act is brought into operation it is to be hoped that a change for the better will be effected.

The report of the Marine Department laid before Parliament contains some interesting information which is new to us, and may probably be eo to many of our country readers. There are ten lighthouses at present on the coast of New Zealand, three of which were completed last year. The total prime cost of these lighthouses, in round numbers, was sixty thousand pounds. The total cost of their maintenance, during the past financial year, was £6320. The average cost of these lighthouses was £6OOO. The Dog Island lighthouse cost the most, nearly £10,500, and the Nelson lighthouse, which is much the lowest, cost only £2824. These sums include the cost of light-keepers’ dwellings. The total cost of the Marine Department during the past financial year was £9854, which includes salaries and lighthouse contingencies. The total amount of the light dues collected for the past year was £5576 against £6012 during the preceding yeai\ This falling off in the dues collected is chiefly exhibited in the Auckland returns, and, to a lesser extent, in those of Dunedin, Lyttelton, and the Bluff. The light dues collected at Wellington and Wanganui exhibit a slight increase over those of the preceding year. The amount received for pilotage and port dues for the past financial year was £9873, which also shows a falling off in this branch of provincial revenue of £690, compared with the receipts of the preceding year. This falling off is accounted for by the tonnage of vessels arriving from beyond seas being less than during preceding years. Mr Seed strongly recommends the erection of a lighthouse at the entrance of Tory Channel, for which the necessary vote had been made last

session. The number of casualties to shipping that occurred during the past year was twentyeight, representing a tonnage of 2322, and the number of lives lost was twenty-eight, which casualties are much fewer than during the preceding years. An admirable wreck chart accompanies the report, and the latter reflects great credit upon Mr Seed, its author.