The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 229, 10 January 1855, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times.

iVednesdait, Jan. 10. 2 355. Tee Address of the Superintendent ot' Wtiiilnuton uuon opening die ?econd Ses~:on of the Provincial Council bears characteristic marks of Dr. Featkerston's ability p.ad decision. Its introductory part contains i matter of interest and importance to the i colony at large. The question Dr. I Featherston proposes and endeavours to ! solve —"' la what sense is the Constitution. I Acr. to be read : in. vrbat spirit is it hencei forth to be carried out ;" —is, we foresee. 1 Uk&lv to be a tiamblinir-block in the pracj ticai \rorkins of the Constitution. Dr.' i Featherston states the dilicrent opinion* i vrhich he conceives to be heid by opposite | parties on this question, and pronounces .bis • decision. We are not satisfied .with his i mode-cf stating the case. We do not agree ! with fais process of reasoning-, neither do I we think it wise to provoke a. controversy ; vrhich.seems to us unnecessary and ill-timed. j at a moment when the greatest possible I amount of union is needed between men j of all parties honestly bent en the good ot" j the colony. j According to Dr. Featherston there, are | three political sects or parties : Municipaii ists. ready, as he supposes, to reduce the Provincial Governments to the rank ot

Bnjd'sh Municipal Corporations, mere pavin^and lighting Boards; Gentmlists, whose /,so?a aim is to absorb the Provincial Govern-. incuts Into the General; and Provincialists, f o { whom he avows himself one,) desiring a Federal union of the Provinces after the ■Ymerican model. He omits to notice another distinct class: those who accept Use Constitution as it is, and who would endeavour to work it in all its parts to the best advantage,; neither wishing to under;u ie : | the reasonable independence of the Provincial nor to overthrow the controling authority of the General Government. Tjtttween these contending sects there are | uo means of comparing numerical forces. We believe the parties described by Dr. Featherston as Municipalise and Centralists (in fact they are one and the same) to j he few in number though not without influ- I once. E%*en Dr. ■ Monro's views have lately undergone considerable modification on this point, and he may now be said to have i ixivcti in his adhesion to that Constitutional Class which Dr. Featherston has left out of calculation. Unless we are greatly mista- j ken. that class embraces the largest and jnost permanently influential body of the colony. No doubt to carry out the policy of such a party, sttering between two extremes, will require wisdom and forbearance: and now and then offence will needs be given-to parries of ultra opinions; but no other principle can be adopted permanently except by altering the fixed conditions of the Constitution. For it is an alteration impossible without recourse to Parliament —unless indeed we choose for ! our starting point a Declaration of Inde- j pendence. As to asking Parliament to revise the Constitution in order to plan our institutions after\the. American model; we hold thai the attempt would be absurd. There it is, ] and we must be content with its main provivisions for the present. In our opinion it ] contains sumcieut means of securing the one | great desideratum- —good Government for. j the colony."* | Dr. Featherston agrees that **h~ ! tution Act. as it is, contains the true _ can type——at least that it may be so con-. srrued and worked. We differ from him. The attempt to make out a paralleljbetween. our case and that of the United States is simply absurd* The six small Provinces of New Zealand have no land of resemblance to tlie separate independent States of America, and never eanjhave. We do not argue so much from the disproportionate magnitude of the respective subjects of comparison, though this alone makes the parallel an absurdity. All the circumstances social, political, and geographical, are different. In straining to give practical effect to such a parallel we should be like the frog in the fable. The first condition of a federal union is that of independent States. The fundamental law of such a union is. that voluntary compact by which they first unite, a compact which cannot be broken except at the risk of dissolving the Conventional union. It is true, as Dr. Featherston remarks, that the powers of our Provincial and General Governments are derived from a common oi-igin. Parliament* has created both, and relatively" to Parliament both are subordinate. Relatively to the General Assembly, the Provincial Councils have in a certain measure co-ordinate authority. And yet Parliament has expressly given to the General Assembly a paramount jurisdiction, with liberty, subject to the direct assent of the Crown, to curtail the powers of the Provincial bodies. I3y a strange perverseness of reasoning Dr. Featherston refers to this in proof that the Central Legislature was not meant to exercise control over the Provincial bodies,

as if the argument were not conclusive the other way. Parliament has expressly declared that the Central Legislature may alter and curtail the Provincial powers, subject only to one condition, namely, the direct assent of the Crown. Equally strange is the reasoning by which Dr. Featherston seeks to establish his position that the General Assembly has no power to repeal specific acts of the Provincial Council, though he is compelled to admit in the same sentence that an act of the General Assembly may be made to invalidate whatever is repugnant to it in the local acts. This is mere trifling. If acts of the General Assembly may be made to invalidate Provincial Ordinances, it is idle to question the mere form. What matters it whether the overriding power be exercised by -way of direct repeal or by enactment of something repugnant. We regret these abstract controversies. They are unprofitable, and under present circumstances, mischievous. We do not think them altogether suited for a Superintendent's address to his Council. Practically they tend to sow dissension amongst men whose interest and duty it is to unite. We ourselves cordially agree with Dr. Featherston in seeking to maintain the efficiency ;of the Provincial Governments, and as a ! means thereto we desire to see secured for I them the freest possible scope and self j action in local matters ; but we believe this I to be perfectly consistent with the paramount j authority of a General Government, whose I policy should be not that of neglect but of | cordial co-operation founded on identity of I will.