The Globe. MONDAY, JULY 31, 1876.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 659, 31 July 1876, Page 2

The Globe. MONDAY, JULY 31, 1876.

We have already shown that the scheme of separation proposed by the Auckland-Otago party has nothing to recommend it from a colonial point of view, and that it is a bungling attempt to evade a financial difficulty unworthy of statesmen. We will now ask our readers to consider its local and selfish aspect. How would the proposed scheme of financial separation affect this part of the colony ? In this view of the question we would ask our readers to remember that the scheme proposes a considerable sacrifice on the part of the Middle Island in order to bo relieved (a vain hope, we may add) of further responsibility on account of the North Island. Ifc is not proposed even, as far as wo cau learn, to make the contribution from each island dependent on the proportion of Customs revenue raised in each district. No such thing ; a hard and fast arrangement is proposed which is to fix the future payments by the two islands. This part of the colony is the most prosperous at the present time, and we enjoy a large land revenue, and on this basis our share of the public debt is fixed.

But if the Auckland-Otago scheme would be a bad bargain for the Middle Island as a whole, it would be even more injurious to the best interests of Canterbury. We are first asked to make a sacrifice to the North, to get rid of further liability on that account, and then we are asked to take upon our Bhoulders the debts and liabilities of four other impoverished provinces. We all know the financial position of Westland, Nelson, and Marlborough. They have all had to exist more or less on the bounty of the Colonial Grovernment. Otago is less deeply involved. But even she can scarcely carry on without Central Government assistance. Her liabilities are greater than ours are, and her resources are less easily realised. Under these circumstances Canterbury would be preyed on, on all sides. Her land fund would be the principal source from which the subsidy paid to the North Island would be derived, and what was left of it would go to maintain the impoverished districts of the Middle Island. We can well understand the annoyance felt by Otago and Auckland at the attitude taken up by the Canterbury representatives. At the present moment the fate of both parties in the House is in the their hands. We are pleased, therefore, to learn that Separation finds no favor in their eyes, and that when the division takes place they will be found voting for the unity of the colony,

We hope to learn when the City Council meets this afternoon, that the Works Committee is able to assure the ratepayers that some energetic steps are being taken to remedy the present disgraceful state of many of our streets. We have already directed attention to this matter, but the Council has what they consider more important work on hand. To all appearance they are on the eve of another law suit, in this instance with an unoffending " Cheap John," and should it be gone on with, a few more hundred pounds may be thrown away. We hope, however, the Council will show more sense. The ratepayers want their money spent upon streets, not law. If any Councillor thinks the presence of " Cheap Johns" in Cathedral square injurious to trade, let him undertake the cost of the case himself, but the general public take no interest whatever in the petty squabble, and would certainly in present circumstance. 0 energetically protest against public money being squandered upon it.