The Globe. THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1876.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 674, 17 August 1876, Page 2

The Globe. THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1876.

There are some people in the world who are utterly unable to believe that those who differ from them in opinion, and act upon their convictions, are actuated by other than mean and dishonorable motives. This spirit has largely shown itself during the debate in the House of Representatives on the separation question. Those who have thought it their duty to seek to maintain the unity of the colony are said to be doing so from selfish motives; they have accepted bribes in one shape or another from the Government. Those members from Auckland and Otago especially, who have had the courage to take an independent stand, and notwithstanding the obloquy cast upon them, have announced their intention of voting for the Government measures in preference to Sir George Grey’s resolutions, have been credited with all sorts of dishonorable motives. There are also certain journals which, for the want apparently of better arguments, have resorted to this kind of abuse.

Even the members from Canterbury have not escaped. Because they are nearly all opposed to separation, some discreditable reason must be found for the stand they have taken. It is the desire, it is said, of the Canterbury men to get the runs re-leased to the present holders, which is the cause. This, according to the Otago Daily Times, is the reason why Mr Stevens opposed separation. “It “is clear,” says our contemporary, “ that Mr Stevens thinks this would “be difficult of attainment under “ separation, but not under a general “ government largely composed of “ Canterbury men.” Our contemporary then goes on to remark upon the jealousy which he says the Canterbury members have always felt of those of Otago, a jealousy which he says is not returned, and denounces the course which the Canterbury men have been pursuing as “ small and infinitely “ petty.” He then announces it as his conviction that the County system will not be carried this session, and that in all probability the provincial system will have to be kept going for another year, and then concludes as follows:—“Will this pleasethe Canterbury “ members P Will this afford them any “ of that security for their runs that “ they want so much ? Surely the “ widest and best way. to secure their “ own pitifully selfish ends would have “ been to join cordially with our men in “ turning the Government out, feeling “ quite sure that they would have their “ full weight and power in forming the “ measures of the new administration. “ Honesty would have been in this case “ the best policy.” Now it is not our intention to defend Mr. Stevens, and the other Canterbury members, against the unfounded attacks of the Daily Times. Those gentlemen are perfectly capable of taking care of their own reputation. We have directed attention to this leader for the purpose of pointing out how prone some jouralists are to search for a discreditable motive, and then to give it forth as an accepted fact. Our contemporary did not advance one single fact in support of his unfounded assertion. His charges are deliberate and willful untruths —the children of mingled rage and disappointed. Ever since the separation resolutions were announced our contemporary has been alternately bullying and wheedling the Canterbury members, and now when he finds that all his arts have ’failed, he turns round and accuses them of the most dishonorable motives. Canterbury has had good reason to distrust the Otago politicians, and our members have too great a respect for their good name to associate themselves with that party. This province has always been antiseparationist. Long before the question of the runs was raised at all, our leading men had declared against dividing the colony, so that the reason adduced by the Daily Times is utterly untrue. If it is “ small and infinitely <{ petty,” to be prepared to make sacrifices so as to maintain the unity of the colony, and lay broad and deep the foundation of a great nation, then the Canterbury members are open to that charge. If it is “ pitifully selfish ” to be prepared to aid the North Island, and other poor provinces, in providing for the education and good government of her people, then the Canterbury members glory in the title. But they have utterly refused to divide our resources with our greedy and selfish neighbours in the South, who are quite willing to pay any price to the North for separation, as long as the payment comes out of the Canterbury land fund.