SEPARATION v. THE SUPERINTENDENCY.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2477, 24 January 1871, Page 2

SEPARATION v. THE SUPERINTENDENCY.

To the Editor of the Evening Star. Sir, —Your correspondent “Elector” is entirely mistaken as to the grounds ■ f my opposition to Mr Macandrew so far as it is affected by separation. lam not wroth with his Honor because he has “not been able to work a miracle. ” I am not wroth wif i Mr Macandrew at all, but I am. opposed to his re-election for this amongst other reasons that he has utterly failed to redeem the pledges lie made in 1867 in these words, viz., “I will devote all the influence of my office to accomplish separation between the Northern and the Middle Island.” On Mr Macandrew’s own admission, during his four years of office, he has done nothing in redemption of that pledge. Yet, if his speeches immediately I}:dore and after the election of 1867, be taken as expositions of his opinions, Separation was above all other things, the one thing needful. But not only has Mr Macandrew failed to do do anything to effect our deliverance from “ the incubus ” which weighs us down, or the “millstone that hangs around our neck,” but by his support of the Government scheme of finance, he has confessedly aided in rendering our deliverance almost, if not altogether an impossi bility. Mr Eeid has been, so |far as I know, at least honest, and consistent on this as on other subjects, and I say better have a.man who says what he means and does, or at all events endeavours to do what he promises, than one who will make the strongest possible declaration of opinion in favour of one course of aejtion, and accept and support measures which are dimatrically opposed to tWaction he had so advocated. X ajp, &ii , Jofix W. Jauo. Dunedin, 20th January, 1871.