Original Correspondence.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume XII, Issue 1282, 14 November 1857, Page 3

Original Correspondence.

To lhe Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. „ Wellington, November 9, 1857. .. i> 1101I 101 notice ,I|C proceedings of Hie uiliy Meeting’ of Inst Tuesday evening, us reported in your issue of Sutuiday, but for nn unwur-nint.-ible use of my name in your leading article. I ask you ; on what principle of honour or fairness do you—as a chri-tinn, n gentleman, ora public journalist, venture to state. Without the shadow of evidence, licit, an address to the Qtaki tr.aories who vote in the Country Districts signed by Messrs. Brandon nnd bclniltze was probably written by the Reverend Janies Buller, or his son?” What pitiable feeling do you Ums seek to gratify? Since. Sir, you have so far abused your editorial chair, 1 beg you will, in your next dale, give to my indignant repudiation of your Implied sneer, the same publicity Hint you haveoblnined for your unscrupulous insinuation. Will you justify your suspicion by my alleged "political" character? " hat reason or authority have you for such a charge ? If l am rightly informed, you object nottothe/W/caZ services of a reverend gentleman when they will subserve, at once, your convenience and your object. Nor have you, it appears, any objection to endorse the base and dishonourable conduct by which a sermon on Christianduty , was formally denounced because a certain individual believed he had received “ u very fair account of t from those who heard it.” Men who can commit themselves to such a “ Resolution” on such a ground are those whose opinion is unworthy of I mj regard. I forbear to characterize the chief actor in that scene, as he merits. Had 1 been so unfortunate as to receive ti e commendation of my calumniator, I should think there was some reason to fear I bad unwittingly become a “ political partizan.” But why, Sir, in your report, did you conceal the fact that tny son, who was present, informed the meeting that his lather’s sermon, of which such a garbled, distorted, and untruthful version hud been given, was already in the print) > s hands and the public would soon have an opportunity of forming their judgment of its character? Is this your impartiality ? Then, surely, no one more needs a “ radical reform.” You are willing to be the channel of undiluted venom. Sir, 1 envy not your spirit. I spurn the “ Resolution.” My appeal is from a “ Public Meeting ” to the bar of “ Public opinion” by the immediate publication of my “ Political Sermon.” Meanwhile I cannot withhold a smile at the approach of the pointless arrow of my pub lie censor I shall certainly forward the particulars of the case to the principals at Auckland and London, with whom 1 have some interest" ! ! ! 1 am, Sir, your obedient servant, JAMES BULLER. RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT. To the Editor of the New Zealand Specl-itw, Wellington, November 13, 1857. Sir,— You lately favored us with a Socratic Dialogue on the theory and practice (in this Province) of Responsible Government. The following extracts from a characteristic brochure, entitled “ Catechism of the Constitution of New Zealand,” which is generally attribut ed to Mr. Fox, will serve to illustrate and confirm the view taken of the subject by his “ late” Colleague, Tungilianus “ What is meant by Responsible Government? “ It is when the Governor is bound to act by the advice of his Executive Council, and bound to appoin* to it only persons in whum the Colonie's express confidence by electing them to the House of Representatives. It then becomes their duty to decide upon a policy of Government, to explain and justify it to the House of Representatives, to frame and introduce into that House laws proposed by the Government, and io carry on the Executive Government of the Colony by enforcing the laws, and seeing the public manty expended in the way directed by the Assembly. So loi.gas a majority of the House of Representatives approves of their policy, they continue to hold office; but if a majority be opposed to lhat policy on material points, so that they cawot carry the Government measures, they must RESIGN, AND THE GOVERNOR MUST TUT IN THEIR PLACES OTHERS WHOSE VIEW'S ARE MORE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE OF THE MAJORITY. Suppose that though the policy of the Government were opposed to the wishes of the majority, yet the members of the Executive Council should refuse to resign, and the Governor refuse to dismiss them, what remedv have the Colonists ?

“Their Representatives can stop the supplies, that is, REFUSE To VOTE ANY MONET FOR THE OFFICIAL SALARIES OR OTHER PUBLIC OBJECTS, which would soon compel the Government to adopt a course in conformity with their wishes. But that is a remedy only to be adopted in extreme cases. “ Has Responsible Government been yet adopted in New Zealand ? “The Provincial Governments of Wellington, Nelson. Otago, and Canterbury, have adopted it ; the first named having set the example, and successfully proved the feasibility of working it on however small a scale. “ How is the Superintendent appointed ? " By the free votes of the colonists of the Province; hut their election may be disallowed by the Governor witi in three months. “ Can he be removed from office ? “ Yes. by the Queen, on receiving an address signed by a majority of the Provincial Council; and this power of removal may be delegated by the Queen to the Govei nor How is his salary fixed and paid ? “ It is fixed by the Provincial Council, and paid out of the Provincial Treasury. '• Is he then responsible to the people! *** Undoubtedly. Being elected and paid by the Colonists and removable only on a vote of the majority of the Council, he is as completely responsible to thepeople as any public officer can be. “ What are the duties of the Superintendent ? They are within his province the same as those of the Governor within the colony at large, to execute the laws and expend the money voted by the Provincial Council, IN THE MANNER DIRECTED BY IT.”—Pp 9-k\ This statement, Sir. is pretty plain and conclusive, and for Mr. Fox. is tolerably correct. He is correct in pointing out that “an address signed by a majority of the Provincial Council,” —not as is commonly supposed two-thirds — will suffice to remove from office an opposing Superintendent. . He is right, too, in recommending a stoppage of supplies for salaries and public works. It is a mistake in point of fact that “ supplies” have been voted beyond the present year. Surely it were an unconstitutional proceeding for a council to appropriate revenue beyor.d its term of office. Otherwise, if for one year, why not for half a dozen? And if a farthing is spent beyond the specific appropriation, I suppose a remedy would be by action in the Supreme Court. 1 will only add, that the Superintendent’s power of tte/o, on Provincial laws is by no means so unlimited as seems to be supposed. It is not really his own veto, but the Governor’s, which he is empowered to declare, and he has no constitutional right to declare otherwise than as he presumes the Governor to direct. The words of the Act are, “ Every bill passed by the Provincial Council shall be presented to the Superintendent for the Governor’s assent, and the Superintendent shall declaie, according to his discretion, and th such instructions as may from time to time be given him by the Governor, that he assents to such bill on behalf of the Governor, or that he withholds the assent of the Governor," In short, the Governor has power to deprive him of the veto, by directing him in every case to reserve bills “for the signification of the Governor’s pleasure.” Thus this boasted veto after all is a mere sham. It is merely a relic of the original idea of Superintendent as a link between the General and Provincial Governments, and which incongruously remained after the ofiice was made elective. I am, Sir. your faithful servant, A LAWYER BORN, NUT BRED.