THE REUNION QUESTION.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2307, 28 September 1870, Page 2

THE REUNION QUESTION.

Writing on this subject the Southland 'fiines says : The novelty of the situation however will not be confined to Southland. On the contrary, Otago will be called upon to deliberate questions which she has hithcito been accustomed to look upon as belonging exclusively to her own metropolitan centre. In other words, the Council must be brought to know that Invercargill has claims in common avith Dunedin, and that the one is equally entitled to as liberal an interpretation as the other. This is a more difficult talc than may at first sight appear. A pa t from any competitive view of the question, Otago has 'or a length of time been familiar with fictitious claim i from her seaboard townships for coastal services and harbor improvements Waikouaili, Mocraki, Kakanui, and Oanupu have each in their turn boon “cag r in the fray,” and sundry efforts have from time to time been made to allay their clamor by demonstrating the worthlessness of their schemer. Conspicuous amongst these were the Kaknmii sea-wall, and the Oamaru jetty, each of which was sacrificed to the sea, although ostensibly presented as peace offerings to the public. Otago has now found out to her cost that agitations of this kind are no better than so many attempts to secure a lavish expenditure of public money regardless of consequences, and what could bo more disastrous than to find Southland’s ports similarly rated? Between the Bluff Harbor rpid an open roadstead like that of Oamaru there is nothing in common, and the responsibility will rest will our members of making this distinction sufficiently obvious that it will he recognised in future deliberations. The category, if one is to he ‘ought, must bo found in a parallel avith Port Otago, otheravise ave shall undo one of the principal achievements of our career as an independent province, viz., establishing the reputation of the provincial port in the face of unfounded prejudice. Entertaining, as wc do, views of this kirn], it is hardly necessary tq say time wc are strongly opposed to any proo ediug calculated "to prejudice the ensuing election. Antiunion predilections are no justification of such a proceeding. Virtually speaking the union has been accomplished, .and any opposition that can now be shown avill only injure our prospects under the neav reylm* l , avithout affecting in any avay the tic by which ave hound to it. Such opposition will simply recoil upon our own beads, so that the proceeding is ono to be condemned as a suicidal _ policy. Nothing would injure the political standing of the province more than the fact that futile opposition had rendered the exercise of the power reserved by the Governor necessary. A rumor that gained but little credence, avas come time

ago put in circulation, that the Southland members opposed to reunion, or at least a majority of them, had entered into a covenant that, if elected to serve in the first reunion Council, they would positively decline. The rumor seemed so very absurd that as we have already stated, little or no attention was paid to it. Taken in conjunction with the course odopted by Mr Lumsden, we arc reluctantly forced to the conclusion that there is more truth in it than was imagined. Surely it will not bo further acted upon to the prejudice of the district. Opposition to a debateable question, so long as it continues so, is perfectly constitutional, but so soon as it becomes a part of the political administration under which we live, every attempt to thwart its legitimate operations is to be deprecated.