The Evening Star MONDAY, JUNE 2, 1873.

Evening Star, Issue 3208, 2 June 1873, Page 2

The Evening Star MONDAY, JUNE 2, 1873.

Ip Mr Egbert Stout’s assurance were measured by bis knowledge, it would be very much less than most soberminded persons of all parties in this City believe it to be. And if his knowledge again were gauged by the measure of his audacity, his knowledge, either of law or of logic, would be much more extensive than we believe it to be. We think we can justify this assertion. Mr Stout, the other evening, assumed to know more about the constitutional position of the Superintendent than the whole Cabinet, Chief Justice, Attorney-General, and Ministers ; and he ruthlessly under foot any unfortunate elector who modestly ventured on interjecting a question or remark that did not iump with his pet views. A person assuming so high a position as this should have been very well assured indeed (we don’t mean Mr Stout’s peculiar assurance), but he should, in our view, have made himself as nearly certain, as, humanly speaking, he could be, that his ground was perfectly firm under him. He is eternally speaking about his logic and his constitutional law. Let us see how his own language will stand the touchstone. Eupert like, he comes at once to the charge, assailing the Premier —“ he defied him to produce one single clause in that Act that gave the Superintendent any administrative power at all.” Then, after quoting clauses 18, 25, and 26 of the Constitution Act, which he considered to suit his purpose, he summarises thus:—“ Those were all his powers. They were shortly these—legislating with the Council, i.e., he might assent to any Ordinance they passed ; he had the power also of recommending the appropriation of public money, and of submitting the laws, or drafts of laws for the concurrence of the Council. Those were all the powers the Superintendent possessed.” Again he tells us, “ For executive power or administrative power of any kind, there is no provision in any part of the Constitution Act whatever.” The audacity of this is really refreshing. Pray, learned Theban, in the very section 25 which you quote, does not the Superintendent recommend the specific appropriations to the Council, and is it not (still in the same clause) by his warrant and by tJuit alone that the public money can be issued? And are not these administrative acts? Nay, does not the language of the clause forbidding the Superintendent, in his legislative capacity, to assent to any appropriation which he has not first, in his executive capacity so recommended, clearly prove this ? We really were till now under the impression that both these powers, not only were executive powers, but among the very highest and most jealously guarded of all the Executive powers vested in the Crown or its delegates. Thus we remember that in Elizabeth’s reign, a great trouble was made in Sir W. Mildmay's case, because some money was paid for which the precise warrant required by law had w t heett Binned hy the Queen, Again,

in 1811, when poor George 111. became insane, a vast trouble was made because the King was not in a condition to sign the warrant for the issue of certain moneys, which had been appropriated by Parliament to the military and naval services. This certainly used to be considered a high executive act, till this great constitutional lawyer enlightened us. Nous avons change tout _ cela. Again, one would think the issuing a writ for supplying a vacancy in the Council (which by the 12th section the Superintendentmight have done) was an executive act. Put into logical form, here is the learned gentleman's argument Because the Superintendent, by the Constitution Act, is a part of the legislative body, therefore he is not the administrative head of the Province. Then, on this showing, since the Queen of England is a constituent part of the legislature, she is not the depositary of the Executive power. The Governor is, by this same Act, a constituent part *of the General Assembly, he is therefore not the depositary of her Majesty’s prerogative. Again, since the President of the United States is a constituent part of the legislature, he is not the elected head of the Executive. Now. is this mere ignorance, or is it disingenuous pettifogging? Really, from what immediately follows, the latter would seem to be the correct view. He tells us he has in his hand a despatch from Governor Grey, sending Home the draft of the Constitution, and Sir J. Pakington’s letter transmitting the Act. Mr Stout does not tell us what Sir George Grey s despatch contained, but we recollect reading it some years ago, and we are mistaken if it did not strongly point out the absolute necessity of having an Executive officer to administer the government in each Province. Mr Stout will correct us if we are wrong. He does give us a bit of Sir John’s letter. “ Her Majesty’s Government,” says the Secretary, “ did not feel that they had sufficient information to adopt any definite course (as to the executive power of the Superintendent) while the general prerogative of the Crown, and the power of the general and local legislatures seemed amply sufficient to provide whatever might be ultimately deemed advisable.” This is twisted by Mr Stout to prove that no executive power to the Superintendent was contemplated by the Act. Can language, we ask, make it plainer than the Secretary s letter does, that the intention was to avoid definitely clothing the Superintendent with the details of his authority, wisely leaving that to be done on the spot as expediency might direct? With strange inconsistency, Mr Stout goes on, almost in the same breath, to show that this very course was exactly followed. Again, we ask, is this the blindness induced by overweening conceit, or is it the trick of a pettifogger? Now, waiving, for the sake of brevity, various points in the Constitution Act, and the Acts in pari materie with it unfavorable to Mr Stout’s contention, enough appears to raise this issue, viz.. either Mr Stout deliberately strove to mislead his audience into the belief that the Constitution Act contemplated the giving no administrative power to the Superintendent, or his consummate self-sufficiency led him to talk with indecent assurance of things he was honestly ignorant of. One or other, we don’t know which, but one of these things must be true. A modest interpellation by an elector as to the effect of the Executive Ordinance was the occasion of Mr Stout blazing out into scorching and superb brilliance on the sources of the Superintendent’s administrative position. As to this, we see no reason to quarrel seriously with him, except to remark that his incurable trick of sophistry appears in the play upon the word “ concession.” On tiiis view, all the rights which the law gives any man are a “ concession” to him mere acts of grace, in fact. This was the idea of James the First exactly. Then, he is at great pains to prove that the Constitutional character of the Superintendent is not analogous to that of the Governor or of the Queen. This is another of the common logical tricks of persons who have a bad case. They get up a great stir and a dust about proving something that is not denied ] they march and countermarch, and turn the plank and pierce the centre, and finally triumph over an enemy that never existed—one of Falstaff’s “men in buckram.” Who holds that the Superintendent’s position is the same, or even generally analogous to that of the Governor or the Queen ? On the contrary, we maintain, and are prepared to show that this is just the point of the whole controversy, which is grossly misunderstood. There cannot, we think, be the least doubt that the true analogue of the office of Superintendent is not the Governor or the Queen, but the President of the United States or the State Governor. That this was really what was in Sir Geo. Grey’s mind when he drafted the sketch of the Constitution we think is nearly certain. That this idea has found its expression in the Constitution Act we think we can show. An inference from this assumption, if true, is this, that the system of responsible government is an utter anomaly—in fact, with an elective Superintendent a sheer impracticability. As this is a point of great importance, —indeed, the essence of the whole affair—and, as, we observe by the address of the laife Speaker that it is a stumbling block to him, we shall devote a separate article to this matter.

One more observation and we leave Mr Stout. An elector interjected a modest remark as to the confidence of the electors in the Superintendent, and as usual Mr Stout blazed out upon him. According to him the President of the United States, although he is a co-ordinate part of the Legislature, yet, because ho is elected by the whole people—and there is there no such thing as responsible Ministry—he js a despot. Unhappy is the

land whose public affairs are administered in the narrow and paltry spirit of pettifoggers. A greater curse could not fall on it—and of this truth history abounds in examples. From this evil, that we, in this Britain of the South, may be delivered, we earnestly pray. Exoriare aliquis 1 Mr Stout is a person of considerable talent, but that bears no proportion to hisimperturbable audacity and assurance—those are unbounded. Up to a certain point and among a certain class they are a source of power ; but the very best cards may be played too often. We think Mr Stout is committing this error just now; and we know for certain that we express the feeling of a very large number of sober-minded people of all shades of opinion when we take leave of him for the present with the advice, “ Young man, for your own sake, and in the name of decency, do try and go a little slower.”