The Star. TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1869.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 327, 1 June 1869, Page 2

The Star. TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1869.

-» It wag, perhaps, to be expected that the Press, and the small clique of which it is the mouth-piece, would violently oppose the report of the select committee appointed by the Provincial Council to inquire into the apportionment of revenue and the administration of government in the province. Nearly two years ago — that is, in the General Assembly session of 1867— the Timaru and Gladstone Board of Works Bill was before the public, and at a largely attended meeting in the Town Hall, the following resolution was agreed to : — That this meeting earnestly urges upon the General Assembly the desirability of passing a Local Government Bill, preparatory to the dissolution of the Provincial Government. The meeting at which the above resolution was passed had been called by those who were opposed to the Timaru Bill, and who desired to strengthen the hands of Mr Moorhous3, then Superintendent, in his opposition to it in the Assembly. Tbe Press actually gloated over what it called the " sell " perpetrated on tbose who got up tbe meeting. Nor did these gentlemen escape the laßhes of our contemporary. They were sneered at as having acted at the bidding of Mr Moorhouse, aud they were taunted with their defeat in a manner which suggested strongly the idea of kicking a man when he is down. It will be gathered from what we have said — all of which may be distinctly proved by a reference to newspaper files — that the Press was greatly in favour of "justice to Timaru," as the cry was then. And it will be remembered that the Press was only acting in accordance with its traditions — it was opposing Mr Moorhouse. It is important, ia connection with this matter, to bear in mind on what ground Mr Moorhouse and those who thought with him opposed the Timaru and Gladstone Bill in 1867. They admitted that Timaru had much to complain of, and even went so tar as to allow that the claims put forward on its behalf were perfectly just. But they opposed the Bill because they held that it was a dangerous thing to let tlie General Assembly do wiiat it was clearly the place of the Provincial Council to do. That was the very dis tinct ground of their opposition then. When the same party now come forward and say — Let the Provincial Council do full justice to Timaru by giving it the reality instead of the shadow which it got from the Assembly, they are told that they are inconsistent, and that they have thrown all principle to the winds. We think, on the contrary, and we believe the majority of the public will agree with us, that there is thorough consistency in their conduct. When Mr Moorhouse implored and entreated the General Assembly to reject the Timaru Bill in 1867, he promised that he would bring in a measure into the Provincial Council granting what the district asked. Hia promise was scoffed at, sneered at, and called hollow. But we wish to recall that promise, because it distinctly proves what we now advance — that the party who then opposed the Timaru Bill did so on the ground that they dreaded the interference of the General Assembly in the matter, not that they were opposed to or denied the justice of the claims put forward by Timaru. The same party now shew that they were thoroughly sincere then in their promise to give Timaru what it wanted by and through tlie Provincial Council, for they come earnestly forward and ask the Council to give the district all the privileges of local self-govern-ment. We are not, be it remembered, defending the course which Mr Moorhouse pursued in the Assembly when opposing the Timaru Bill. On the contrary, we think he altogether forgot his position and what was due to it when he frantically threatened to "talk against time" in order to prevent the Bill from becoming law. But we wish

it to be very distinctly .^membered that the men who.then acted' with Mr Moorhouse clearlyi-ftnd; emphatically declared their intention of "doing: what they now propose "to accomplish^— give Timaru what it:' wants by provincial legislation. It is a very noticeable fact that the Press of this morning, in its opposition to the proposal of making the district south of the Rangitata a county, says nothing whatever about the justice of doing so. It does not stop to inquire whether Timaru has an equitable claim to what Mr Buckley's resolutions would grant the district. Not at all. That iB not our contemporary's cue just now. He at once draws a very horrible picture of the evils which, he says, the colony has suffered" by the erection ot Southland, Marlborough, and Hawke's Bay, into separate provinces ; and then in frenzy asks — " Is that what " the people of Canterbury wish to see " this province reduced to ? Is it their " desire — is it for the good of the " colony — that Canterbury and Timaru " should sink to the level of Marlbo* " rough and Southland?" There is only one answer to this sort of argument. The people of Canterbury, as they expect to be justly and fairly dealt with themselves, desire also to mete out justice to others. In fact, they wish to do as they, would be done by. Besides, will the Press venture to declare and to maintain that the mere fact of giving Southland, Marlborough, and Hawke's Bay the right of selfgovernment hasbrought them to the condition they are now in ? It ia not the possession of power, but the way in which power is used that brings about either evil or good. The people of Timaru bave shewn, in their working of the Act passed in their favour in 1867, that they are quite capable of governing themselves wisely and prudently, as far as it allows them to do ao ; and they have shewn also that they could do much better if they had certain other powers which they are determined to have. It should not be forgotten, in dealing with this question, that tbe southern portion of the province will inevitably get what it wants from the Assembly — Irom the Central Government — if the Provincial Council refuses to do it justice. There is no mistake about that, and it is worse than ridiculous to ignore the fact We happen to know, and we ask the public tp bear in mind, that the southern membersof the Provincial Council have distinctly intimated tlieir intention of not again attending a meeting of tlie Council. They have not made this intimation by way of threat, but with the calmness and determination of men who are convinced that they would be untrue to the interests of their constituents if they ary longer lent themselves to the worse than absurd farce of attempting to govern Timaru from Christchurch. That is the light in which they view the matter, and their determination riot 'to attend another session of the Provincial Council is the honest consequence of the opinions which they hold with regard to local self-government. It must be remembered, also, that the town of Timaru is not even now represented in tlie Council.... The great majority of the electors steady refused to choose a member, and eligible men firmly declined to come forward. We are not now enquiring by what means, or with what motives, this state of feeling was raised up in the southern district. We do not approve of all the action taken by the leading men of the district, nor are we quite certain that the motives of all are what they ought to be. But that is not the question. The feeling exists, in what strength and intensity we have shewn, and it is the duty of the Provincial Council to deal with things as they are. There is no use in attempting to reason with Timaru, or in trying to shew the people of the district that they are wrong. They have made up their mind ; they are united ; and they are determined to have what they want. It is for the Provincial Council to say whether they will grant it, or drive the district to the Central Government. That is tho one point on which they have to decide.