The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1874

Evening Star, Issue 3525, 10 June 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1874

We do not agree with the doctrine laid down by Mr Reid, that Mr Fish’s motion could “ effect no good whatever, as it was only hurling censure at the heads of those who could not be affected by it.” The mere fact of the resignation of an Executive does not exonerate its members from blame or censure. Practically, no condemnation of Ministerial conduct by a legislature, excepting in cases of impeachment, seriously affects even the political status of indiThey are not forsaken by their friends, nor despised by their opponents, nor distrusted by their constituents. By many, so long as their motives are free from suspicion of personal self-seeking, they are regarded in the

light with which mankind view Nelson’s disobedience of orders; they acknowledge he set his superiors at naught, but the object justified his disobedience. Just so may it be said in regard to the tenders for light railways. The Council authorised the Executive to go to a certain extent, on specified conditions: they exceeded the amounts prescribed and varied the terms, and thus laid themselves open to censure on the ground of disobedience of instructions ; although they might most probably safely have pleaded that what they had done was purely for the advantage of the Province, and, therefore, they had a clear, right to thanks, rather than blame, by the Council. So far as the public are concerned, the praise or blame attributable to the late Executive must be measured by the exigencies of the case. The Council, by authorising the construction of certain lines on any conditions, affirmed the desirability of having them proceeded with; and the difference of a few thousands of pounds between the estimate of what the Council considered they ought to cost, and the price at which the contracts could be entered into, could hardly be allowed to stand in the way of works acknowledged to be useful. But in any light in which it may be viewed, the Council could hardly overlook the fact that

its instructions had been departed from ; and still less when one member of the Executive cast blame upon another, and imputed to him unworthy motives for his conduct. It may fairly be concluded from the report of the Committee that if Mr Bastings erred, he only shared the wrong-doing in common with other members of the late Executive, and that any censure passed upon him must be visited equally upon each of them. So far as be is personally concerned, not a shadow of blame rests upon him. The report discloses a somewhat loose practice of dealing with appropriations, which appears to have grown into a custom acted upon in all stages of our Provincial system. It proceeds on the assumption that as money cannot be expended on the purpose for which it was voted, it may be fairly laid out on another similar work for which sufficient had not been appropriated to complete it. Such has always been the practice, and it has its conveniences. It is quite

impossible for the Council to say to a sovereign how much shall be laid out on such and such a road to keep it in repair, and Mr Reid was quite right in saying “ the Government should not act merely as a machine, but when occasion required they should be prepared perhaps to exceed the letter of the instructions given by the Council, while they carried out the spirit of those instructions.” Nothing but inconvenience could arise if, every time the cost of « contract exceeded the sum authorised, it was absolutely necessary to refer back to the Provincial Council for leave to spend a few pounds more money. Many important works could not be proceeded with, and instead of progressing, as a Province, we should be reduced to a standstill. It would be almost necessary for the Council to sit en permanents, and to supersede the Executive by assuming their duties. All that can really be required of an Executive is that they shall be prepared to render full and satisfactory reasons for any departure from their instructions, and this, according to the report, has been done, so far as the road from Tokomairiro to Tuapeka is concerned. Substantially the motions of Mr Fish and Mr Reid are alike, with the exception of the conclusion at which Mr Fish arrives regarding the theory of “responsible Government.” Each expresses the same idea, that the acceptance of the contracts should have been postponed, but Mr Reid provides a loophole, founded upon long experience as an Executive officer, which Mr Fish does not appear to admit. The

report is not, however, confined to the special objects for which the Committee was appointed. There are hints concerning matters that are not disclosed. It appears that Dr Webster and Mr Shand, before agreeing to accept office, stipulated for a “remodelling of the Estimates.” This is one of those euphonious phrases that politicians know so well how to use when they wish to throw a cloak over something that is better not told. What did those gentlemen ask? How did it affect themselves and their constituents ? The Committee does nob tell this. We think it should have been unfolded, for it is quite proper that the Province should know the price paid for the invaluable services of those advanced politicians. We are inclined to think that the services rendered by Mr Bastings have been far more valuable, and perhaps more independent, than both of them put together, even at their best estate, would be able to give.