The Star. WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 20, 1869.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 215, 20 January 1869, Page 2

The Star. WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 20, 1869.

Some time ago Dr Poster wrote a letter to the Lyttelton Times, in which, after remarking somewhat severely on the inaction of the Constitutional Seform Association, he challenged Mr • John Strange Williams, as a member of that, association, to give a reason for the faith that is in him on the question ©f separation Mr Williams, as some people thought, did not accept the -challenge very readily. This arose, it ziow appears, from no intention of shirking the discussion, but from an - earnest desire to do justice to the sub- . vject. Mr Williams replies to Dr JPoster in this morning's Lyttelton Jffimes. His letter occupies upwards of five columns of our contemporary's , -space, aud we think it will be generally , admitted, even by those who do not -agree with him, that Mr Williams has i made a very able and very exhaustive ■ . statement. It is, of course, impossible ; for us, with the limited space at our •command, to reprint the letter. But, , --as the public generally are deeply in- i fcerested in the subject with which it i tleals, we propose to lay before them, ■ far as we can, and to discuss, to the ' best of our aiblity, the arguments ; brought forward by one who baa cvi- i dently given the separation question { •very careful attention and close study. ■ This we can only do piecemeal, but we ( believe we shall not weary our readers. 1 After remarking on Dr Foster's ; comments on the action or inaction of i fche Constitutional Reform Association, which, he hopes, will be able to take .care of itself, Mr Williams notices that Dr Foster had thrown the whole weight of proof and explanation upon laim. Dr Foster had said that the public is entitled to know of every man who proposes a political change " what ~" he wants, why he wants it, and how ■■" he is going to work it." To this Mr "Williams fairly and truly replies : — if If this is so, I fear that the public *' has been very badly treated by all ■*' political parties. Every one agrees ■" that considerable political changes £l must shortly take place — the Govern--4t ment advncate a change, the Opposition advocate a change, and yet " neither the Government nor the ■•*' Opposition have informed the public -** at all clearly as to what they want, "why they want it, and how they are ** going to work it." No one, we think, who has given any attention to the political discussions of the last twelve months will deny the truth of Mr "Williams' remarks. And they apply with especial force to the Stafford Government, who, it will be remembered, had to stand a longjaiege on the ; special qnpstion : — what fs your policy ? The first aud main question in deal-

ing with separation ia this — is the change desirable? If it cannot be shewn that separation is desirable, there is no use in asking how it cafJ be effected. Mr Williams tells us, in the following words, what he means when be says that he wants separation : — '.' I " mean that I want a separate Govern- " ment and Legislature for each island, "so that we may, as far as possible, " manage our own affairs without in- " terference on the part of the North " Island, and that the North Island, in " like manner, may manage its affairs " without interference from us. More " especially I desire that this island " should be absolutely prevented from " interfering in Native matters, and "should be freed from an indefinite " liability for Native and war expen- " diture." Having given this explicit statement of what he wants, Mr Williams proceeds to state why he wants it. "We are asked to look at some of the results of union. In this island, we are paying about £170,000 a-year for the interest and sinking fund of a debt which has been spent almost exclusively — altogether, Mr "Williams might have said — for war purposes in the North Island. And we have also to pay seven-teuths — seven pounds out of every ten pounds — of the yearly expenditure incurred in protecting 80,000 Europeans against half the number of Maoris, as well as seven-tenths of the expenditure on the Native race for civil purposes. During the last six years, that is, from 1862-3 to 1867-8, we have spent £2,855,578 for defence, and £268,200 for Native purposes. In all, three millions, one hundred and twentythree thousand, seven hundred and seventy -eight pounds in six years ! In addition to the above, there has been an annual expenditure on militia and volunteers, and £7000 yearly for Native purposes, a sum which is prescribed by the Constitution Act. In the current financial year, the sum appropriated for defence and Native purposes amounts to £205,734, or more than a fifth of the whole colonial revenue. Mr Williams estimates that we are now spending at the rate of £300,000 a year for war, irespective of civil expenditure for Native purposes. But Mr Williams has, in our opinion, considerably under - estimated the expenditure. Men who "ought to be able to form au estimate say that we are spending at the rate of £2000 per day, at least, on war. That, of course, means £730,000 a year. War expenditure, hitherto, has been defrayed out of loans, but all the loans authorised have been raised. Where, then, are we to get the money to pay for war ? If, says Mr Williams, expenditure on war is carried on at the present rate, a new loan and additional taxation can hardly be avoided. But even if the expenditure is reduced, and the " colonial army" placed on such a peace footing as the advocates of the so-called self-reliant policy desire — 500 men at a cost of £81,000 a year — there will be an annual deficiency of £34,000 to make good, for the colony can spare only £47,000 out of current revenue for, defence. Here then ib a deficit of £34,000 a year without war. Where is it to come from ? And, if war should arise, how are we to obtain the much larger sum that would be required ? By loan ? The people of the colony will resist it ; and, which Mr Williams does not mention, capitalists will probably not advance it except on ample security. What security is there to offer ? We are taxed, heaven knows, to the very utmost that we can bear, so that resource is not open. What is left ? Our land fuud, and that alone, There is not a single thing besides. Aud a " united colony " means that the estate we are relying upon here in Canterbury must be swallowed up in carrying on a war which is altogether for the benefit of the North Island — a war which will not cease till the Maoris are extinct as a race.