The Evening Star MONDAY, AUGUST 9, 1875.

Evening Star, Issue 3887, 9 August 1875, Page 2

The Evening Star MONDAY, AUGUST 9, 1875.

While the Colonial Treasurer was moving the second reading of the Abolition Bill, Mr was addressing his constituents al‘ Caversham. It is instructive to place the reports of the two speeches side by side and to compare the broad and comprehensive views of the Minister with the contracted notions expressed by the casuist. Mr Stout claims to see further than the Evening Star— be it so. We are not of the prophets’ nor of prophets’ sons’ descent, but one event we truly predicted, and that was that MiStout would endeavor to lay down a rule in favor of retention of Provincialism upon the exceptional example of Otago. Mr Stout is always a specious speaker, and on Friday night acquitted himself admirably ; but unfortunately for his consistency he contrived to measure Provincialism and the proposed substitute for it by different standards. Nobody, reading his very carefully softened down account of the last session of the Provincial Council, could arrive at any other conclusion than that such a log-rolling, unprincipled little Legislature is unfit to be ti usted with the administration of interests so important as those of Otago ; Nothing was opposed until the Estimates came on for consideration; then a cry arose about turning out the Government. The Opposition comprised many of the members for southland, who thougnt that their district was being slighted. The question at issue was not one of principle, but one of the distribution of inoney. throughout the various districts. It was this which led to the defeat of the Reid Government. .... It was unfortunate that the Reid Government should have been put out on a question in which no principle was involved beyond the mere expenditure of money, as large capital was being made out of it in the General Assembly.

Was not the Treasux-er right when he said—

It was a sound principle of political economy, that the power which imposed and raised the taxes should spend the money and bo the responsible power ; but was that the way Provincial legislation worked’—(Loud cries of “No.”) the Provincial Councils raised money from the people in various ways, and spent it as they liked, without giving the General Government any account of it, except as a matter of history.

We need not follow Mr Stout in his condemnation of the doings of the Provincial Council in their assertion of the principle of nomineeism and perpetuation of the present absurd land tenure. r l here is much in all this with which we agree with him. The faults we generally find in his speeches, and which were intensified in his Cavershatn address, are the use of certain terms that he applies without qualification to different things, and in not dealing thoroughly with a subject. Thus in condemning nomineeism of members of the Harbor Board, he applied the term equally to thorn, to administrative officers to be appointed in lieu of Superintendents and Executives, and to the Upper House, This indiscriminate use of the term to functions differing so widely, enabled him to pour forth a large amount of specious clap trap about people’,) rights, whirl) wo slimiM bo sorry for hie, intellect if we couM suppose he seriously entertained. 11, no doubt served to rouse the enthusiasm cf those who could imagine, i(, tyrannical in the editor of a Journal dn.’lim, publishing an ill wnttm. rigmarole J'-tlcr Mml d, was . Ii i »(.y (|,</ hi I o lie, -.ar.,.. I* 11 1 1 1 It now o( in. one mote 'ben M i , f nil in |,j f . M. r c>t ' , " l lo 'I. rpr.i so. |, dupes. ||„ Vr| l bnowM ai, |,Mist should not irnr the ■ on In four n, that (lie objrcfiou to :i nomine)' legislature is that there in no responsibility to anyone—scarcely even to the Queen, whose representative may have made the appointments. On tln’s ground a nominee Irgi .hdtuv is not m accordance with the principle of Constitutional Government, the leading feature of which is respen-

sibility. But when men are required to carry out special functions the principle of election by the body of the people does not insure the choice of the fittest. In fact his election would be a mere accident, with ninety-nine chances to the hundred against it. On this ground the appointment of Judges, Magistrates, and all non-political Executive officers invariably entrusted to Governors with their responsible advisers, the last of whom can be called to account for any corrupt or even mistaken selections they make. We are at one with Mr Stout that it was unwise to alter the constitution of the Harbor Board, As at first arranged, diferent interests were represented. The Province in the person of the Superintendent and Speaker, the City by _ the Mayor, Port Chalmers by its Mayor and one member of the Board, and the mercantile interest by the choice of the Chamber of Commerce. But what lay at the root of the making it a body of nominees? The fact that by the appointment of trusts to various departments, Provincial Councils are shorn of their functions and become useless, and it was therefore a retrograde step which, in the hands of a one-sided Superintendent, should the Province be cursed with one, may. be rendered detrimental to the improvement of the Port, and consequently to the interests of the City.

Mr Stout, in our opiiiion, misapplies the term nomiueeism to the delegation of Executive powers proposed in the Abolition Bill by the Governor. It will be necessary to have Executive officers, but they will be responsible to and removable by the Governor, and the limits of the powers conferred fixed by him. They will thus stand in a different relation to the country from political heads of departments or members of a Legislature, being more in the position of Under-Secre-taries or similar officers, These are always appointees. They should be men of special qualifications and training why not, for instance, Mr Stout, in case Mr Macandrew declines ? No one is better able to administer a law or to understand its provisions, and it is just that routine that the appointee will hare to fulfil. To condemn the appointment of a paid officer to such a subordinate position on the ground of being a nominee, is simply a misapplication of the term, and we give Mr Stout credit for knowing it. History supplies abundant instances of the evil of popular elections of merely administrative officers. In fact, we know of no more fertile source of corruption. We have selected this as one instance of Mr Stout’s peculiar style of treating his subject. He is exceedingly clever at it, and very expert at drawing general conclusions from particular premises manufactured for the occasion. He has proved, beyond question, that even in Otago Provincial Government is not perfect j that so far as administration is concerned it is not based on principle ; and that, however able, Executives can be* unseated in a scramble for money. He showed, by many proofs, that in legislation the Council is not up to the intelligence of the age. He never travelled beyond Otago, nor stated how utterly Provincialism had failed elsewhere; but had he fairly represented the case, he would have endorsed the following statement of Major Atkinson :

Asa sort of reply to what had been said in defence of Provincial Councils for their usefulness in the way of local- government, the administration of local affairs, and the promotion of settlement, he would fast what good had Provincial Councils done for the country of late years that Eoad Boards and the General Government could not have done, and have done more efficiently, as well as more economically ?—(Hear, hear). No doubt there was a time wl en Provincialism was a necessity—when Provincial Councils performed very useful functions. In the early days they might have served a good purpose, but in the last few years they altogether failed to perform those functions—and immigration ceased, and stagnation prevailed ; until in 1870 the House, by general acclamation, placed the control of these works in the hands of tho General Government. He could say from all their experience in these matters, that Provincial Governments had never shown that they could perform these functions which, they maintained, pertained to them particularly, so well as the General Government and Road Boards could.