The Evening Star TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1876.

Evening Star, Issue 4017, 11 January 1876, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1876.

Now that the elections are pretty well over trust personal animosities heated, it is wise to look forward to tho work that has to be done and the means at our command wherewith to do it. We take it for granted that the electors of Dunedin and, perhaps, generally of Otago, have chosen men pledged to oppose Provincial Abolition mainly under the idea that, by retaining Provincial Councils, the compact of 1556 will be held sacred, and in Otago and Canterbury. in terms of that compact, “tho Laud revenue shall be made Provincial revenue.” Tho fulfilment of that compact we have ever contended for, and we have endeavored to make it clear that by electing opponents to the Governmemt, there was danger of its being trodden under foot should the present Ministry be ejected from office. It should bo plain wc can have no other object than the welfare of the people who have supported us, that it is. our work to study the interests of the Province, that we are of no party, but that measures, not men, have our advocacy. This seems to have been forgotten, for our warnings have had no weight with the electors, who have believed interested men rather than the Press. But regrets are useless ; and it only remains for us faithfully to draw public attention to the dilemma in which the Province is placed by following weak counsel. If every member in Otago were pledged to oppose the Government, an alliance will have to be formed with the representatives of another Province, or the Opposition will be powerless. With what Province can Otago unite ? Not with Canterbury, for the constituencies there support tho Government; and without going through the list, we may safely say that the only Province at all likely to join with Otago is Auckland. The fact of Sir George Grev and others bowing down to Mr Macandrew, and parading their homage to him at the Dunedin banquet, points clearly to the expected co-operation of the Northern and Southern extremes. But lio w cun there be unity of action between them? We say nothing of the men themselves. Sir George Grey and MrW. L. Rees maybe as lately described necessary complements to each other, but Sir George, the gentleman, plus Rees for the roughs, -will not make a statesman. The Opposition last session was weak through the incompetence of its iteador, and in the coming straggle it can o'iily become respectable through placing at it# head a man of talent and integrity. A clninge of leadership would be resented most probably, and might lead to dissension. This, therefore, must be set down as difficulty the first. But a far more s'C'rious obstacle to union than this presents' itself in the diametrically opposite objects sought by the people of Auckland and Otago. The ‘ New Zealand Herald’ of December -7 publishes two letters on the Crisis with R leader supporting the views enunciated by the writers. One letter is by Mr Clark, a .rejected candidate, explaining that he is not an opponent of Sir George Grey, and the (tfcher by Mr Robert Graham, one of the most influential men in the Province. Extracts .Cram their letters will render remarks on cm' part needless, as they speak for themselves. Mr Clark, for election purposes, had been charged with the sin ot being a Government supporter. In reply, he wrote

Sir,-— Since I have been before Hie public as a candidate for the suffrages of the electors of City East, it lias again and again been advanced, by my opponents that T am u, supporter of the present Government, that I am the Government candidate, and that I am opposed to Sir Geoige Grey and his party. Those statements I have distinctly denied, and still they are repeated; their refutation la to be found in my speeches, hv.t ns many of the electors have not time to go back on long speeches, will you be kind enough to give a Kttl£of your space while I state our relative position* os briefly as possible ? For some time back it has appeared to me that, with the deception of Separation, there was no practical difference between the policy which Sir Georoe Grey would advocate, between the measures which he would Introduce and what I would be prepared to support; and 'now that Separation has almost been lift out of the question, we are agreed upon every important point. Sir George Ghey, in his speech in the Choral Hall„ merely spoke of Separation as something to be thought of, and Mr Bearer Wood considers it altogether impracticable. 1 have expressed myself prepared to support au Opuosltion with the view of turning oat the present Ministry on the ground, even if there were no other, of their maintaining the localisation of Ituc land revenue, thus perpetuatiug that gross injustice from which Auckland has suffered so much; also, on account of their reckless expenditure regardless of the votes of the House, and of the corruptness and obstructiveuess of certain portions of their administration. I shall be glad tohave an oppox-tuuity t» enrol myself under Sir George Grey's banner to fight for the formation of a non? Ministry, with the following as the main features of their policy -.—The unity eg the Colony, and one puree, not in tin me only, but in reality; the land fund of the Colony to he madv Colonial revenue;

railway extension to be continued until the main centres of population in the North Island are connected; education to be mule a Colonial quest ion, and to be provided for out of Colonial revenue; the incidence of our taxation to be readjusted to make it tall on the people iu proport ion to means, and the mdoavor to carry out reform iu administration and •etrouchmoiit in expenditure.

But Mr Graham goes very much further, and not only recommends, but in very sophistical and what must be pronounced dishonorable terms defends Northern repudiation of the compact of 1856. with the addition of saddling Canterbury and Otago with" a portion of the three million loan borrowed to defend. North Island property. He say© ;

With reward (o the compact of ISVj.hy which I he laud revouuo became Provincial revenue, 1 may state, as allusion has hec-n made to tho part, I took in that important, question, that I insisted that 2s 64 an acre should be appropriated by the General Government. Had this arrangement been carried out, the Province of Auckland would to a large extent have shared in the laud revenue of the Colony, do strongly did I feel on this question, in common with others, that we memorialised the Home Government on the injustice that was done to the North, by localising tho whole of the land revenue. This unjust resolution was carried by a bare majority. Such being the case, I then cons.dered, and now consider, that morally neither the electors of Franklin (whichl had the honor to represent) nor myself were bound by it. It is all very well for the South to treat it as a compact, “ Compact ” I take to be a course of [action resolved upon by general consent. That such was not tho case, the “division-list” of the day will show. It surely will not for one moment be argued that what was felt to be an inJustice, and has been proved to be such, should be maintained, fn common fairness and honesty ( restitution should be made to those Provinces robbed of their birthright, and I consider that the oleCßw only of this Province, but of ■Wellington, Taranaki, Napier, Nelson, and Marlborough should nn/ f C in returning only those members who pledge by nil means in their power to annul this mis-termed Compact of 1856. I rot only consider that the i' k ud revenue enjoyed, hy Canterbury nm? 01oiio, by virtue, of this so-called Compact., should he -made Colonial re ecu to a*' formerly, but that the judges of the Supreme Court should be appointed to determine to what amount the other Provinces should be relieved of apportionment of their indebtedness of the loan.

The bare majority was however nearly two to one, as the following copy of the division list will show ;

Ayes 19 —The Colonial Treasurer, Messrs Stafford, Hall, Domett, Major Greenwood, Messrs Campbell, Dee, Cuff, Travers, Williamson (East), Wells, Taylor, Curtis, Merrimau, Ludlam, Carleton, Brittan, Colonial Secretary (Teller.) Noes 10—Captain Cargill, Messrs Cargill, Fitzherbert, Fox, Peatherston, Daldy, Henderson, Macandrew, Smith, Ward (Teller.) Mr Graham’s name does not appear. We quote this division list as a curiosity. It points to the short sightedness of the most acute politicians. That to which Mr Macandrew was opposed in 1856, he bases his claim to election upon in 1875. That which Auckland forced upon the South in 1856, it struggles to snatch away in 1875. This is, however, clear : both Auckland and Otago cannot be right in their grounds of opposition to the Ministry. If Auckland’s view of their policy is right, then Otago ought to have supported the Government if is right, Auckland should Jiave looked upon Ministers as their best friends. Unfortunately, for the course we have taken, Auckland is right; and because the electors of Otago have been deceived, our legitimate jiifluence over public affaire is lost. Aucklaijd and Otago may unite to eject a Ministry, but they must go into uncompromising opposition* to each other in the formation of a new one.