South Canterbury Times MONDAY, AUGUST 14 1893.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 7286, 14 August 1893, Page 2

South Canterbury Times MONDAY, AUGUST 14 1893.

The House of Representatives by its vote on Sir Robert Stout’s Local Option Bill showed itself willing to apply the principle of the Referendum to the liquor question, yet it refused to endorse Mr O’Oonor’s proposal to apply it to other questions Hie Bill provided for submitting to the electors direct any questions relating to alterations in (1) the Constitution of the colony ; (2) the present mode of administering the Government ; (8) the electoral laws ; (4) the land laws ; (5) the education system ; (6) to any proposal for to a loan ; or {*[) to construct a railway, and (8) to any Bill which provides that the Referendum shall be taken upon it. Where is the consistency of applying a new principle in one case and refusing it in others to which it is equally applicable 1

On this subject the West Coast Times not unwisely says “ Though the direct voice of the people may be employed to enforce prohibition, it has a range of operation infinitely greater than the question of the drink traffic. We object to it because it is a jump in the dark, a treading on what is practically unknown ground. Were it conceded, the first principle of constitutional Government, as we understand it, would be set aside and be replaced by something new. Hitherto the march of democracy has been gradual. The power has been slowly taken from the Crown and given to Parliament. Is the power now to be taken from Parliament and given to the people ? Are there not other things to be dene first 1 We have not yet arrived at that stage when we think the Legislature < should consist of one chamber, owing to its power directly to the vote of the people. In this country we have not even gone so far as an elective Upper Chamber; we have not even considered whether the nominal or actual bead of the country should be elected by the people. Surely these are matters to be dealt with before the people exercise a direct vote. Is the democratic idea to advance by evolution or revolution ? . . . . Until we can be sure of a beneficent autocracy or democracy it is better that power should be filtered through different channels, each being in a position to check a monopoly by the other.” Tub demand of the prohibitionists for a) direct appeal to the people on the licensing { question brings out a weakness inherent

m the Party government system. A legislature may be clearly divided into two parties on any single question, or on any related group of questions ; but it is clearly impossible that the same lines of division will answer for all questions, and the demand for “ party allegiance” on all questions which the leaders may take up is a demand either for an impossibility or for a subjection of conscience. The Wellington Press proposes a remedy, or at least a partial remedy. The present Government succeeded to office on the issue of a land and income tax versus the property tax ; parties were defined by their opinions respecting direct taxation. It would be absurd, on the face of it, to assume that the Government party, because they are unanimous on a fiscal question,are also unanimous on any other class of question. The Press thinks the members should be free to form fresh parties on every question, and then : u A Minister might be beaten on a Bill he introduced ; but the Ministry need not resign. The introducer of the Bill would have a lesson taught him—that is all; or he, personally, might resign, but that would not effect his colleagues. It might take longer to pass measures through the House, but in the long run the country would be the gainer, for Ministers would be,cautious of introducing legislation unless it was salutary and necessary.”