The Globe. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 836, 27 February 1877, Page 2

The Globe. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1877.

The correspondence between the County chairman and the General Government laid before the Selwyn County Council on Friday last is worthy of some attention. The subjects discussed therein not only open up some important questions, but have a very immediate bearing upon the revenue likely to be at the disposal of the various Canterbury counties. As it may be somewhat difficult for our readers to disentangle from the mass of correspondence the real stale of matters, we will briefly summarise the facts, before making any remarks thereon. The Provincial Council voted certain sums for buildings and works, amongst others, the additions to Addington Gaol and Snunyside Asylum, which remained unexpended and were passed on as re-votes. After the cessation of the sittings of the Council, the estimates sent forward to the General Government contained, together with several other votes, these two items, for the three months ending December 31, 1870. Nothing, however, was done in the matter of calling for tenders for the work, and, in the meantime the Abolition Act cominginto force the whole of the buildings &c., became a colonial charge. The General Government, however, now wish to expend £26,000 provincially voted, and subsequently reverting to the Canterbury counties, as revenue. There can, we think, be no question that the position taken up by Mr. Kollestou is the correct one. He points out that it was distinctly understood that the expenditure on the buildings and works referred to would, on the Abolition Act coming into force, become a colonial charge, and that the county would be recouped. On the face of it this seems feasible, because at the time of the recommendation being made a very short time only had to elapse before the Abolition Act became law, and the General Government took over all buildings, Ac. It is not therefore likely that without some such understanding as that of the recouping of the expenditure, that the recommendation would be made to spend £20,000 of the money belonging to the Canterbury district on a work which would then distinctly become colonial property. A further point is also raised by Mr. iiolleston as to whether, no contract having been entered into before December 31st, the vote lapsed and reverted again to the Treasury of the Provincial District. On the other side, the argument mainly seems to be this, the General Government have no money for the purpose; you must either spend the money provincially voted, or the work must stand still. Now any one who knows the urgent necessity which exists both for the additions to the Gaol and Lunatic Asylum will agree with us that great inconvenience will result from the stoppage of the work. Indeed, as pointed out by Mr. Solleston in the case of the Addington Gaol, it will delay its occupation for a year. But even though this be the case, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that if the revenue which the Canterbury Counties have a right to expect will be at their disposal as belonging to the Provincial District, are expended on what is exclusively a colonial work, a great injustice will be done. From the date of abolition these institutions reverted to the Colonial Government; all control and expenditure on them vested in it. We fail therefore to see how one provincial district can with fairness be asked to devote a very considerable part of its revenue to the construction of works, the cost of which by law should be borne equally by all. It is not, it must be remembered, now a question of provinces; it is not a gaol or lunatic asylum wanted for Canterbury, it is a colonial matter. Hence to appropriate revenue justly belonging to this district can hardly he defended. Mr. Eolleston, and from what we can gather of the County Council by the discussion, the other members also agree with him, make what we consider a very fair proposition. That is in effect that the General Government shall expend the provincial vote upon these buildings on the understanding that application will be made to Parliament for the reimbursing of the provincial district. We confess wo are unable to see why the Government cannot accede to this. As Mr. Kollestou pointed out, the public convenience would bo served, and justice done to the district, by a return to it of money to which it has every claim. We are glad to find that the County Council has taken such prompt measures to protest against an act of injustice being done. It is true, they can do little more than this. The Government holds the money, and may, if it sees fit, expend it in ary way, But we think it will

pause before doing this when having before it the strong protest of the representatives of the ratepayers of the county. However the matter may end, we fell that Mr. Rolleston, by his vigorous defence of the county revenue, lias earned for himself the thanks of the ratepayers, and we can only hope that the course indicated by him may be adopted by the Government. By this means two important public works will be continued, and an act of justice will be done to the District of Canterbury by a refund of revenue which is in reality the property of all the counties within its borders.