The Evening Star TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1873.

Evening Star, Issue 3203, 27 May 1873, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1873.

The memorandum published in the Jjfm Zealand Gazette, setting forth the reasons that induced the Colonial Government to consent to a dissolution of the Provincial Council, forms a complete answer to the memorial forwarded by the dissentient members. The comments in the columns of our contemporary this morning are intended as a rejoinder to it, and we commend them to the notice of the electors as tending to show how weak and sophistical are the arguments condemning the dissolution. From the style .of reasoning adopted, and from other little logical tricks fn the Daily Times article, we should imagine it to be issued in anticipation of the address to be delivered this evening at Caversham. It builds the whole fabric upon a point that was abandoned by every member of the Opposition. The constitutional power of the Superintendent to act as he did is admitted by all sides, and it remained for a lawyer to endeavor to draw a line between his •'‘power” and | t is “ right.” Assuming that the action of the Superintendent was unconstitutional, our contemporary proceeds to

draw analogies where none exist, to reason upon suppositions suitable to his purpose, and, with the view of throwing dust in the eyes of the electors, tries to throw the charge of faction upon the Superintendent and his advisers.

Our contemporary considers it strange on the part of the Colonial Cabinet to reply to the memorialists — If, as is really the case in Otago, the Superintendent deems himself bound to cany on the business of the Province with the advice and consent of his Executive —and if the Superintendent is unable to work with an Executive which commands the confidence of the Council —the result must be a dead lock, out of which there can be no escape except through a dissolution.

To every unprejudiced thinker this proposition has the force of an axiom. It is so self-evident as to need no argument to sustain it. It is idle to reply that the Opposition were prepared to go on with business It is simply an evasion of the truth, amounting to a falsehood j because the condition on which alone they would proceed is left out of view. They would not “go on with business,” excepting with an Executive of their own appointment, irrespective altogether of the approbation of the Superintendent. The business they set themselves seriously to transact was to thwart all the Superintendent had done. They condemned the dismissal of his refractory adviser, and upheld him in his uncourteous opposition. They refused to transact business under the Executive he had appointed. They forced back upon him a minister who had declined office, and agreed to support an Executive in whom neither the Province nor the Superintendent could place reliance. Had the Superintendent weakly yielded, they would have been the dictators of the Province, for they would have had tools in office who must have done their bidding, and his Honor would have been powerless to resist. He would, in fact, have abandoned that controlling trust placed by the electors in his hands. To say that a faction capable of conduct so insulting to one elected by the Province, and exhibiting so little consideration for its true interests, were prepared “ to go on with business,” is rather too much to ask the constituencies to believe. It is too sophistical even to serve as a salve to the most easily satisfied political conscience, and the hollowness of the plea is its severest condemnation, The men who invented it could not believe it themselves; and if they seriously thought any man would, they are too “ green ” in their knowledge of the world to be again trusted with political power. There is one view of this question which has been relied on with confidence, in excuse for Mr Reid’s refusal to resign in Wellington, when the duty of doing so was pointed out by the Superintendent. It is said he was acting by deputy at the time, and consequently was not, de facto Provincial Secretary. Like many fallacies laid hold of by legal acumen, as falling in with popular doubt for specific purposes, this sophism has been extensively made use of. It is, however, so well treated, and so thoroughly exposed in the Cabinet Minute that henceforth, although it may and will be reiterated, the man who asks others to believe it will only be laughed at. The clear and masterly exposition in the Cabinet Minute of this fallacy is as follows:

The memorialists lay great stress upon the Superintendent’s dismissal of the gentleman at the head of his Executive, in consequence of his having taken office in the Colonial Government without consulting, or even advising, the Superintendent. The Government aro unahlo to see that His Honor acted otherwise than with moderation. It is to he remembered that the Constitution Act intended that the Superintendent should possess the full powers of a constituent part of the Provincial Legislature. The acceptance of Executive advice —in other words, the submission to the advice of one branch of the Provincial Government—is a great concession on the part of a Superintendent. A constitutional Monarch or Governor is not bound to act upon advice with wnich he disagrees, or to accept advisers with whom he cannnot work in harmony. But constitutional Monarchs or Governors, with rare exceptions, are ready to be guided by the advice of their Executives, as they do not possess, as a rule, strong opinions upon the points about which advice is tendered. Superintendents, on the other hand, are elected rulers in most cases because of the opinions they express, and they clearly owe obligations and duties to those who elect them as well as to their advisers. It may be held, therefore, that a Superintendent, in respect to the choice of his Executive, and his acquiescence in their advice, possesses at the least as much discretion as other constitutional rulers. But no constitutional ruler would submit to the head of his Executive accepting the post of Executive Adviser in another Government, without consulting or even informing him. In short, Mr Reid did not exhibit to the Superintendent the courtesy which the latter had a right to expect. Mr Reid’s first letter in reply to his Honor was satirical, and disrespectful in tone, and was itself a proof that, in his new position, he ceased to pay to his chief the respect which he owed to him. In a subsequent letter, after Mr Reid retired from Colonial office, his tone was much more respectful, and he justified his acceptance of office on the ground that a deputy was performing his duties in Dunedin. This plea is no doubt entitled Jo (consideration ; but the Government, after giving It full weight, have come to the conclusion that Mr Reids depqty jyns only performing such duties as required to be discharged on the spot, in the same way as when a Minister temporarily leaves the seat of Government, some other Minister during his absence signs papers for him. But Mr Reid could not depute his position as head of the Executive to any one. He continued to hold that position, although temporarily absent from the Province, Having dismissed Mr Reid, the Superintendent would not have stretched his powers in declining to accept him again, as his adviser, until after _ a general election; but with great moderation he invited Mr Reid to resume his position immediately after he ceased to hold office in the Colonial Government.