New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1874.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4233, 14 October 1874, Page 2

New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1874.

There are few newspapers in the colony, and certainly no purely district journal, conducted with the ability of the Wairarapa Standard, We may agree with, or differ from, the views of that paper, but wc are always bound to recognise the ability of its original articles. Wo say this all the more readily, because before we finish wo- shall take exception to one or two points in a leading article of our Wairarapa contemporary of the 3rd instant. It is not our intention to enter into a controversy with onr contemporary, however. Our desire is to remove an impression, likely to bo created by a peruaal.of the article in question, that the Opposition, last session of the General Assembly, had any definite policy to place before the country, or were influenced by any higher motive than the somewhat narrow one of staving oft' tho period of provincial dissolution, while the reins of Provincial Government remained in their own lujnds. This statement may lay us open to tho charge of attributing personal motives to tho gentlemen forming tho Opposition, and who resolved themselves into a Con-' stitutional Association, with the view of working the (provincial machinery- its patronage, and local influence —in their own favor during tho recess. And in one

I sense the charge ■would" be a fair one, We bate shams, and we do not like beating about the bush. Let us therefore say frankly at the outset what we mean. We mean that lust of power, inherent in every man who has the slightest ambition, is root and branch of the opposition which has been, raised to the proposal for an amendment of the Constitution which would abolish Provincial Government. So far, therefore, the opposition is purely a personal matter. Believing, as we do, that tho leaders of the Opposition do not care one pin’s point for Provincialism as a system, apart from the field it offers for the gratification of personal ambition, we are justified in regarding the arguments of these gentlemen, based on the constitutional theory that an ultimate appeal should be made to the people before legislative action takes place, as no more than a skilful device for concealing the real issue. And we regret to find that our usually astute contemporary, the Standard, has fallen into tho trap for the unwary, spread by’the dexterous political fowlers who have taken this matter in hand.

Our contemporary selects Mr. T. B. Gillies and Mr. Beeves as representative men of the Constitutional Association. Passages are quoted from the speeches of these gentlemen, and the votes of confidence accorded to them are accepted as conclusive evidence that their profession runs all fours with the political views of choir constituents. On the latter point we have a single remark to make. In yesterday’s issue, wo disposed of Mr. Beeves’s confidence vote under the hand of a leading constituent of his own ; and we have no hesitation in saying that Mr. Gillies’s voto was obtained by the merest accident ; —it was the result of a complete desertion of principle on his part, and of ignorant political excitement on the part of his audience. So much for the votes of confidence : we now come to the political platform which Messrs. Gillies and Beeves lay down for the Constitutional Association. It is thus summarised by the Wairarapa Standard :—

“ This, then, is the * platform ’ of the “ Constitutional Association —determined “ opposition to the partial abolition of “ the provinces ; determined opposition “ also to their total abolition without the “ people having been afforded an oppor- “ trinity of expressing their opinions “ upon the subject, and upon the institu- “ tions which may be proposed to snper- “ sede them, by moans of a general “ election.”

We take no objection to this summary so far as it goes. It gives, in concrete, the diluted ideas of Messrs. Gillies and Reeves. But what then 1 Is it satisfactory ; or does it embody any political principle which should commend itself to the country ? We reply in the negative. There is not a single plank in the u platform of the Constitutional Associ- “ ation ” that is not honeycombed with political insincerity and dry rot. For example : take Mr. GiLLiEsVphtnk. He is reported to have said at Auckland : “It was doing an utterly unconstitu- “ tional thing to place the two islands 66 under separate constitutions.” This is misleading ; no such proposal has been made by the Government. Again: “If “ the Constitution was good for one let it “be good for the other. Let them sink “or swim together. Changes in the “ Constitution ought not to bo made “ without the consent of the people u affected by them.” 3Sovv, we affirm that Mr. Gillies held very different language last session, and that he repeatedly professed his readiness to vote for a measure abolishing provincial"institutions throughout the colony, if the Premier wouldintroduce it. No considerations for “the consent of the people” then influenced him ; nor did he at all respect the planks which Messrs. Curtis, Rolleston and others, have jointly contributed to the “ platform” aforesaid, namely, that Provincial Government should not be abolished until its substitute had been first approved of. Indeed, so powerful an influence had Mr. Gillies’s arguments on the minds of members, that we believe Messrs. Williams and May followed him into the lobby on the “ all-or-none” theory of provincial abolition.

Mr. Reeves takes his stand upon a plank of another kind. He desires “ one “ uniform system of government for the “whole colony.” He opposes the abolition of Provincial Government in the North Island, because it would break up the “uniform system of government” which presently exists, and “ raise a cry “ for separation.” Mr. Reeves, however, skilfully concealed his real meaning. Ho knows full well that there is not now a uniform system of government in the colony. He is well aware that Provincial Government does not exist in the North Island as it is known in the Middle Island, and his own newspaper from day to day is his best interpreter. “The “land fund is in danger,” quoth-Mr. Reeves, therefore we must find a safetyvalve for the political unrest of the North, by perpetuating the sham of Provincial Government there, and the reality of dependence upon the South for annual doles from the Colonial Treasury. That is the motive of Mr. Reeves’s opposition; but with the Superintendents, and the members of their Executives, the case is different. It is Inst of power, and lust of power alone, that influences them. There is no form of local government so centralising and intolerant of public opinion as the provincial system in Now Zealand ; and it would be an incalculable gain to the country wore it sufficiently far advanced to got quit of it altogether. But unless the people require it, we counsel the abolition of Provincial Government only in those parts of the colony where it has ceased to exercise its functions for colonising purposes.