The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1876.

Evening Star, Issue 4024, 19 January 1876, Page 2

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1876.

Evidence of tlie danger which menaces the Southern land fund accumulates as the days roll on. The people and the Press of Auckland are especially outspoken upon this subject, and it is but too clear that no quarter will be given by the ferocious laud pirates who lust for a share in the anticipated spoliation. Mr Whittaker -an opponent not to be despised—and the redoubtable Pees has been sent into the Assembly specially charged with obtaining a reversal of the Abolition Act, so that the money of our settlers shall be expended in the Northern Island. And now wo have a certain Mr Frith, who is, we believe, very well known in Auckland, declaring positively that Otago and Canterbury shall be drained of their resources for the benefit of the other divisions of the Colony. In a letter addressed to Mr Macandrew, and published in the ‘ Southern Cross, ’ he thus delivers himself

narrow Provincial predilections iurtileileo jou so far as to impel you to break up the Colony m order that you may continue selfishly to appropriate til- ililld l-fcvcnuS. WlliSh J'oii ftdiifit tobo colouml revenue do jure. I warn yoh that you will b» deiedted. lor the elections will show even you that tan icd-hemtiK mes of Separation or Fccleralion will not any lunger avail to keep the land evenues of the Colony for the exclusive use of Canterbury and Otago. The great majority of the electors of Auckland) Wellington, Napier, Tmai Marlbpro'iph, r.ud Westland mean at last (o have their rt-jhls, of which they have been so long unjustly deprived. In the coining struggle f aere will bo but one plain issue to bo settled, c olo y. one revenue.” That is the question which the great majority of the electors of the . oiony w.Il decide yod, in accordance with common sense, common justice, and sodnd policy. Iherc is v ‘-'ty little reason to doubt, and ntucb ferisdn to f»rtr that these pithv sentences from Mr Frith’s pen accurately delineate the state of public fooling in the Aoichern extremity of the Colony. And indeed, Sir Gf.oiujk’GiieV and his followers, as wo have repeatedly pointed out, advocate the same dishonorable tactics. For that lliey are dishonorable no impartial person '’an deny. They savor largely of the disgracednJ policy of the drab-coated repudiaturs of I‘cnsylvnnia, once so admirably hue' so deservedly castigated by Sydney And we do not hesitate to avow our belief that the men who would be guilty of the flagrant dishonesty so clearly exposed In the too candid admissions of Mr Furrn, are quite capable of repudiating ami disavowing their liabilities to the public creditor, FariUs demimiit arerni, and t 'ie least accurate.'- student of human nature does not require to be told that the rogue who won id rob hj is brother would feel no compunction win 'tsoever in cheating the stranger -within .bis gates, That these nefarious proposals- mil ever be carried into

effect wc should not like to believe. But it will not be for our good that we should stand by ‘ ‘ with bated breath, and whispered humbleness,” whilst the plot is being con cocted. There is a sound old English proverb which tells us that he who is forewarned is forearmed ; and since our Northern friends have been good enough to disclose their hands, it will be our own fault if we suffer them to win the game. What then should be the policy of ( tago ] in the serious emergency wherewith she is threatened? Is it, we ask, desirable that she should link herself with plausible allies who, under the pretence of supporting impossible schemes of modified Provincialism, would fain strip her of her last shilling and her last acre of land ? Common sense forbids such an unholy alliance ; but is the policy of the Provincialist party dictated by common sense? We fear not. We fear that in the mad pursuit of an impracticable theory they will cast aside common sense, and submit to be pilfered from, if only their egotism may be gratified and their small ambitions satisfied. But it must not be. It is in the power of the people to prevent the contemplated sacrifice, and we have faith in them that they will yet rise to the occasion. We are threatened with a combined attack from the Provinces of Auckland, Wellington, Hawke’s Bay, Taranaki, Nelson, Marlborough, and Westland. In each and all of those Provinces there are many men to whom the phrases “ honor and honesty ” are not a mere byeword and a mockery, and without doubt a remnant will be saved from the impending degradation. But we cannot reckon on more than a small minority of friendly votes from such sources. What then is left ? Only Canterbury, ■which is in the same boat as ourselves in this matter, and the good faith of the General Government. No more than these can be relied upon. Let us see, then, how we are likely to stand, when this question, so pregnant with momentous results, is debated. Otago counts some twenty-three representatives, and Canterbury fourteen, in all thirty-seven, out of a house of eighty-four members. It is apparent, therefore, that the two Provinces mostly interested are in a minority, and consequently dependent on external support. And it is absolutely certain that the only hope of such support rests in the advocacy of the Government of the day. They carry with them personally just the requisite amount of power to enable them to elevate or depress the balance on cither side, and by their assistance alone can Otago and Canterbury expect to conserve their rightful enjoyment of the public property comprised within their respective limits. Now, it so happens that the representatives of Canterbury are, almost to a man, adherents of the Government. But will Otago and Canterbury unite and, putting aside for once the absurd Interprovincial jealousies which have severed them more effectually than any mere geographical boundary could have done, show a common front to the enemy ? We greatly fear that they will not do so, and herein lies our danger. With the one pulling stoutly for Provincialism, and the other as stoutly pulling the other way, they will just be a prey to the common enemy. The Abolition Act of the Assembly, the repeal of which is now demanded by the Provincialists, localises the land revenue; but the same authority can just as easily render it Colonial revenue. As the * Press ’ justly remarks in an able article on this subject:—

It is simply a question of voting power. If a majority of the House of Representatives decide that the lan I fund shall be taken over by the Colony, it will be taken; if a majority resolve that it shall continue localised, it will so continue. But whatever form of localisation is adopted—whether the land fund is madu over to the local governing bodies, or to a Central Provincial District Board—it will last only so long oa it is supported by a majority of the House. There is absolutely no other security. The arrangement must depend upon an Act of the Assembly, which, like the Act o! 1858, will he capable of being repealed, and will to a certainty be repealed whenever its opnents get the upper band.

Is it wise, we ask, under the circumstances, for the people of Otago to run the risk which they are invited to incur by a repeal of the Act which secures the land fund and its administration to the Province ?