MR FORREST'S REPLY TO MR PYKE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 756, 13 October 1876, Page 2

MR FORREST'S REPLY TO MR PYKE.

Sir 1 beg to acknowledge the receipt of your fdvor of the 20th ultimo. With reference to yohr complaint of unfair treatment, I may remark that a report of your speech on the Separation resolutions had appeared in the Otago Tress, prior to the 'meeting being called at Alexandra, and as accusations had been blade against you iu the House of acting in opposition to the principles you nrofessed when a candidate for the representation of the Dunstan Distriot, it Was only reasonable to suppose that yota had 'Used the strongest arguments at ybUr command in defence of your vote. It is a matter for regret that when yon were a candidate you wdro'not mote explicit in defining the exact nature of the Separation you wero prepared to vote for, and have thus avoided taking >our supporters by surprise, and subjecting your future actions to possible misconstruction. Xs a proof that your action was unexpected, I need only refer to the fact that the Dunstan Times, which has always given you a consistent support, was quite indignant with the Dunedin Press for prejudging your cnndi *, during the debate on the Separation reso' tibhs, by hinting that you intended to vote against them. lam not sure that I exactly understand the distinction yiin draw be. tween “ hfsul.ir” and “ Financial " separation, I would imagine that Any separation to ne effective must of necessity be financial, but at the same time I must draw your attention to the fact that the resolutions of Sir Qeorue Grey—for opposing which you were accused of breaking your pledges - merely expressed the general basis on which the opposition were prepared to carry out the policy of separation, and Consequently any reference to the county system or other details would ‘have been entirely out of place. Had a Bill to effect Separation been brought before the House, containing provisions which you considered inimical to the interests of the colony, your action iu voting against it would have beeh qui‘o intelligible, but in the case at issue I regret that I cannot see how your vote agoinst the principle of separation can be made to coincide with your election addresses. If tho South Island had obtained a separate Legislature, "there was nothing to prevent it passing an Act to establish the county system if desired by the people, but it would hardly havo ventured r to force upon the people a system which was uncalled for, and to which a majority of the inhabitants of Otago were bitterly opposed ; in this respect the central Legislature possesses a decided advantage. I cannot follow your train of reasoning when you say that aepa’. ration would have led to the Southern provinces being robbed of their land fund. If separation had been effected the Southern Provinces would have had the sole control of their land ftind, and my opinion of the depravity of human nnttire has hardly sunk so low as to believe that they would steal it themselves. The danger lies in another direction. A good deal of the opposition to the Abolition proposals has arisen, not so ranch from a love of Provincialism, as from a well grounded fear that the land Wnd of the Province would be eventually absorbed by the central government. To anyone who has watched the course Of public affairs, it must be evident that the Colony is gradually drifting into financial difficulties, which will require to bo met either by placing increased taxation on a community already taxed at a heavier rate than any other civilized people on the face of the earth ; or else, by a sweeping retrenchment in all branches of the public service. Either of these would be unpopular measures, and are not likely to be adopted Ky a Government which owes the almost despotic power that it possesses to the circumstance that it has had the control Kfcd expenditure of some millions of borrowed cap ital, and with such a tempting means of escape from the difficulty, as the annexation of the Southern land fund, it requires no great gift of prophecy to foretel what tho result 'will be. tinder a Southern Legislature Otago would have held that position to which she is entitled by her wealth and population, an. could have protected herself from spoliation in the unlikely event of anything of the kind being attempted ; but if tho Wellington Government decide that the next sensational act of their programme shall be the seizure of our land fund, what power have we to prevent it ? Whatever opinions maybe held respecting the policy pursued by the Otago members, it cannot be denied that they were as united to oppose Abolition as they are eVer again likely to bo on any question, and that they exhausted every means in their power, used all the forms of the House, and carried their opposition so far in their attempts to prevent the Bill from becoming law, that some, even, of their supporters found fault with them, and urged them to cease from a fruitless struggle, and allow the business of the country to proceed, and the resalt of all their efforts only served to convince them Of their perfect impotence to prevent the passage of a measure which they believed to be fraught with tho worst consequences to the Province. Judging from the past I cannot but conclude that Otago has been delivered bound and helpless into tho hands of a not over scrupulous government, which ha shown itself utterly regardless of public opinion in carrying out its schemes, and that when tho inevitable strucgle takei place, her members will be powerless to protnet her interests. lam afraid that tho persons who Will he “ sony hereafter "will bo those who expect to find public prosperity in abrupt constitutional changes, and who are ready to welcome every novelty under the delusive idea that they havo at last fonOd a panacea for all the ills that flesh is heir to, and who perhaps too laW may find that they have " sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind."—l havo tW honor, &c, , '< W, P. Forrest. Alexandra, October 9th 1876.