THE COLONIST. NELSON, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1864. MR. FITZGERALD'S SCHEME FOR NOMINATED SUPERINTENDENTS.

Colonist, Volume VIII, Issue 733, 4 November 1864, Page 2

THE COLONIST. NELSON, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1864. MR. FITZGERALD'S SCHEME FOR NOMINATED SUPERINTENDENTS.

As the G-eneral Assembly will shortly meet in Session, it may not be devoid of usefulness to refer to one of the deservedly abortive attempts at legislation which have been made in the past, and aro threatened to be repeated in the future. Mr. Fitzgerald, the member for the Ellesmere district of Canterbury, brought forward last Session a bill to abolish elected Superintendents, and to place the appointment of these Provincial Magistrates, in the hands of'the Governor, which means, his Ministry for the time being. At the time the bill was discussed in the House of Eepresentatives it was Bayed from passing by only the narrow majority of two. Sorry we are to repeat, that every one of the members for Nelson province voted in favor of the bill, except Mr. Saunders, who opposed it, and Mr. Andrew Richmond, who was absent from the House. But Mr Stafford, Mr. Domett, Mr. Welle, Mr. Curtis, and Mr. J. C. Richmond, a member of Nelson Executive CounoiJ, all voted'in favor of taking out of the hands of' the people at large almost their only effective political privilege, that of severing their own local chief magistrate ; a privilege which they yet hold in spite of the efforts of the centralising party, who seek to remove the substance of political power from the people, and fool them with its shadow.. We hope when the time comes that the electors will be lesß lethargic than they sometimes are, and will remember the faults of the recusants we have named, when they next appear on the hustings. It is not difficult to trace the true causes of such approximation to unanimity among those, who in this particular instance (we do not refer to others at present) so Badly misrepresented the people of this province. It is party; the virulence of which is a curse to New Zealand legislation. The public have Been how little their wishes are advanced or cared for; how, ia short, their voice is despised as soon as it is adverse to the desires and ambition of those who have lost the race in the contest for provincial honors, and provincial supremacy. No one with ordinary powers of observation, who looks closely to the politics, say of this Province alone as an example, could fail to see that strong endeavors have been made by a defeated party to thwart and checkmate the Government founded on the choice of the people. How far justice is considered in such conduct we shall not say; and howlittle such opposition is merited is best shown by the fact that Nelson credit iB far higher in England than is that of any otlier province, because her debt,—which the same disappointed party did its best frightfully to augment, on the most foolish schemes, but signally failed—has been rigorously kept down. •

Not believing in Mr. "Fitzgerald's theory, and not sufficiently comprehending his reasoning as conveyed in a speech delivered to his constituents in January last, we took leave to address a letter to him stating certain -objections to the measure, and enquiring whether he was still. determined to introduce his bill. The following is Mr. Fitzgerald's reply:— " Cashel-street, Christchurcb, N Z "September 7, 1864. I>eab Sib,—You have a perfect right to ask any Member of the Assembly what are his views on so important a subject as that mentioned in your letter of the 2nd instant."

" I hope next session to carry a measure for gettine rid of elected Superintendents, because,— "1. Experience has shown here, as in all other countries, that an elected Chief Magistrate is, during his term of office, beyond popular control. "2. The powers of the Provincial Councils aro unduly depressed.

" 3. The Provincial Government being independent of, instead of branches of the General Government, the whole powers and functions of the former are being rapidly absorbed by the latter. The provincial institutions are not protected from aggression by a coiistitntion, and being independent are regarded with jealousy by the superior authority. My object is to decentralize the Geueral Government by making the Provincial Government the depositary of most of its powers in the daily work of Government . " I could give a multitude of other reasons, but these are to me sufficient, and I will add that it amuses me to find men who profess democratic principles, and admire local Government, cling to a aystem—blinded by the mere name of "election" which is rapidly centralising our whole Government and seriously curtailing all the real influence which public opinion has over it. Nothing to me is more remarkable in New Zealand history than the impotence of the Press over Superintendents, and its power in the provincial Councils. I know the radical party are against me, but I can honestly say I have never heard one single argument in the House of Assembly in opposition to those which I have urged to show that they are really cutting their own throats, by their opposition. "If I were merely concerned with the Superintendents I would not move, for in three years time not a single power will be left in their hands, of any kind whatever, worth having. Will the control of the people over Government be increased by that ? " I am, dear Sir, " Yours truly, " James Edwabd 'Fitzgerald."

As the putative father of this scheme, we preferred to applj to Mr. Fitzgerald, expecting to receive from him the most cogent reasons and arguments that could be offered m favor of his measure, and we presume that these are contained in Air. Fitzgerald's letter. But to our thinking they read quite the other way. Suppose the first proposition of Mr. Fitzgerald's correct, (which we do not admit) because there are always social and political influences bearing on public matters, not to say principles, which must more or less control Superintendents), but assume that the assertion is correct, what then ? It is equally true of every elective official who takes an office for a term of years. It is true of every Provincial Councillor, of every Member of Assembly; and how many of these last choose to be beyond control because they know the difficulty that exists in getting representatives, is unfortunately too apparent in their conduct.

Regarding the second point—we do not perceive in what possible way the powers of Provincial Councils could be elevated under a Superintendent nominated by a party Ministry, and holding office for life, than by one elected for four years and by the people of the province at large. Does not the plain, eat common sense show that the reasoning is entirely reversed ? and. is it not clea* that * uowmated S»permteft4w^ vrejsnonwbta t^

the people and careless of their power, would be far more likely to depress the Council powers than an elected Superintendent would bo ? To our eyes the case is so transparent that, but that an experienced man like Mr. Fitzgerald had so reasoned, we should have deemed the argument self-contradictory and puerile in the last degree. The third argument contains a fallacy at the outset. It is not the fact that the provincial powers and functions are being rapidly absorbed by the General Government. Every Gazette that is published contains proof of delegation to Superintendents of powers granted to the Governor by Acts of Assembly, and these powers are exercised by Superintendents by and with the advice of the Provincial Councils and the Executives. It is indeed a strange method of remedy, as it is a singular style of logic, which proposes a strict centralisation in room of existing institutions, and terms it "decentralisation." The provinces are now, in point of fact, the " depositaries of powers in the daily work of Government," except in the matter of the collections of the Customs, and superintending the Postoffice, and even in questions relating to these, the Superintendents are consulted. We should have been glad of a few of the " multitude of other reasons" which are not narrated, and particularly of an explanation of the somewhat " foggy " remark that a system whose admirers " are blinded by the mere name of ' election'—is_ rapidly centralising our whole Government and Beriously curtailing all the real influence which public opinion has over it." To a greater extent than we care to acknowledge to ourselves, this remark touching election is only too true of many members of the House of Representatives, and if Mr. Eitzgerald would strive to discover some means of making it less so, he w»uld do a vast deal more service to the colony than he can ever hope to achieve by his Nominated Superintendents Bill. There is another statement in the letter with which we do not agree, and that is that the press is " impotent over Superintendents." If any portions of the press is led away by either party antagonism or ill-reasoned theory, or if it is so vacillating in its tone that it is a strong opponent today of what it as strongly advocated a month or two previously, we should say that impotence was the natural reward of such conduct. But newspapers which possess honesty, principle, and reasonable ability in the conduct of their business, never will be impotent in a free country ; they always can and always will make their power felt among the people, the rulers, and the representatives. To conclude, Mr. Fitzgerald has mistakenly seduced himself into the belief that the powers of Superintendents are being absorded. It is a great error; but Mr. Fitzgerald holds it., and his argument, in brief, is simply this • " The General Government is gradually taking away all provincial powers, it is greatly to be deplored, but we can retain them all by giving them all away !" If there is meaning in language this is the plain and only inference deducible from Mr. Fitzgerald's letter. We should like to hear the opinions of our representatives on this Bubject, and to see how they could explain to the electors the giving of their votes for a scheme supported by reasoning like that offered by its parent.