The Evening Star MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1876.

Evening Star, Issue 4040, 7 February 1876, Page 2

The Evening Star MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1876.

The ‘New Zealand Times’ o the Slat ult. comments on the Land Fund question, and indulges in some remarks not very complimentary to either Auckland or Otago. While there is much that is highly probable in the conclusion that the “ Provincial party ” will soon be dissolved, .and even in the reasons given for arriving at it, the writer goes much further than the circumstances justify in asserting that both .Auckland and Otago “ hold out their hands' for a bribe.” We think even the most sceptical will now be ready to acknowledge that a great mistake was committed when it was imagined that the people of Auckland had any feelings in. common with Otago. Very rash assertions were made when Sir Geoßoe Grey was paraded in Dunedin as a supporter of Provincial institutions. Regret is of no avail now ; but in view of the treachery that has marked the conduct of those who, at the close of last session, allowed themselves to be considered out and out Provincialists, and who have now disavowed Provincialism, we cannot but wish the elections of Otago had been among the last instead of the lirst. We should then have known better what steps to have taken to counteract the .conspiracy that has been hatched against us, and might have chosen men better calculated to secure justice to Otago than the majority of those who have been elected. The ‘New Zealand Times,’ in a very few words, draws the distinctive character between Auckland and Otago : “ Auckland goes on the communistic prin ciple; Otago is conservative in the extreme,” So 1 far we believe there is truth in the description; but we fail to see the justice of the conclusion that “it all comes to the same stand-point in the end ; let us divide the spoil,” What spoil? The land fund of the Southern Provinces ? This is one of the main points of difference between the two Provinces. Auckland wishes to divide it, but Otago claims the right of the Provinces to their land revenue. Agreement between the two is impossible, for the representatives of North and South have been elected for different and opposite purposes. As the ‘ New Zealand Times ’ puts it:—

The Auckland section has thrown over the Con* stitution, and is ready to support any Government that will make the land fund Colonial revenue; the ■Otago section is also willing to live under any form 'of government that will secure to it the public domain in that part of the Colony. Under these circumstances cohesion is impossible.

Such is the opinion entertained of North and South in Wellington. We agree that cohesion is impossible. There never was with us a doubt on that point, but we are not prepared to think that our representatives or our people are so utterly indifferent to forms of government as to be ready to accept anything to save the laud revenue. It is reconstruction that will prove the difficulty, and for that reason it is to be regretted that so few able men have been elected in Otago. The ‘New Zealand Times,’ in order to support its views, mixes up a number of questions very remotely bearing upon Abolition and Reconstruction. It points to certain principles to be abided by to insure the success of the Public Works and Immigration Policy ; but there is nothing special about them. They are equally necessary under any form of Government, no matter whether General or Provincial. When it is asserted that success depends upon the speedy and permanent occupation of the Waste Lands of the Colony, both Sir George Grey and Mr Mao ax drew or Dr Pollen may safely answer “ very true.” We are told that “neither the interest of pastoral tenants nor the cupidity of Provincial cliques can be permitted to impede the work.” The reply is ready, “There is nothing more reasonable, and, when the public are reminded that faith must be kept with the public creditor, not a man in the Colony would be found to deny it. But the very mention of these is an implication that both Auckland and Otago, for selfish purposes, would sanction a departure from the obligations thus set forth. We do not believe it for one moment. We are quite aware that settlement on the laud, and the

conditions of Its occupation are not well understood, but they are not relevant to the question that ha s to he set at rest and must come up for discussion at some future time. It is to no purpose now to multiply difficulties by mixing up things that are different. ‘ The New Zealand Times ’. wolild do wisely to deal with a question on. its merits, without imputing sins tliat exist only in the imagination of its writers.