Correspondence.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VI, Issue 353, 19 March 1856, Page 7

Correspondence.

To the Editor of the Lyltelton Times

g IB> Upon referring to the Constitution Act, I find °y «hxu.<e it is enacted that it shall be lawful for the General Assembly to make laws for the pence, order, and good £ O veniment of New Zealand, provided that lio such laws he repugnant to the law of Ktiwlaiid ; and that although clause 18 empower* the Superintendent, with the advice and consent of the Provincial * ouncil, to make and ordain all .such laws and ordinances as may be required for the peace, order, and ""ood government of the province thereof, nevertheless, by clause 19 it is expressly enacted, that it shall not he lawful for the Superintendent and Provincial / -Council to make or ordain any law or ordinance altering in any way the criminal law of New Zealand, except so far as relates to the trial and punishment of such offences as are now or nwv hy the criminal law of New Zealand he punishable in a summary way. Hence it is very evident that the General Assembly alone cau alter the criminal law of New Zealand, although the Provincial Councils may interfere so far as relates to the trial and punishment of such offences as come under the summary proceedings of the criminal law of Nt;w Zealand as now existing, or as hereafter to he altered or amended by the General Assembly. I think it is not necessary for me to say more to elucidate the distinction of the wording of these clauses and the evident meaning of the context. So t'sv then as my humble opinion goes, ■ I have no hesitation in saying that the Provincial Council has no power whatever "to make the proposed Public-house Bill an ordinance of this province, as it does unquestionably alter the criminal law of New Zealand, by creating fresh offences. Sec. Should the Provincial Council, therefore, siill persist in passing the Public-house Bill, so as to be, as I consider, in violation of the Constitution Act, I shall certainly, upon my arrival at Auckland, take the earliest oppor- i tunity of bringing the matter before the i Assembly, in order that the question may be legally solved. | I am, Sir, your obedient servant, D. A. Biuttin. Lyltelton, Mnreh 17th, 185 S.

To the Editor of the " Lyltelton Times." Sir, —Tn your Leading article of the 15th March, it is staffed that by the alteration introduced by the Provincial Council into the " Road's Bill," the rate payers are positively forbidden to effect any repair upon a main road] miming through their district, should the)' ever he desirous of doing so. That "this statement" is based on a^misapprehension as to facts, an impartial perusal of the bill itself will, I am sure, convince you. As introduced by the Government, the Bill made it the duty of the Waywarden to provide for the construction and repair " of all roads and drains within his district." It appears to have been considered by a majority of the Council, that to render it obligatory on a particular district to maintain a great trunk road, cut up by th« traffic of probably half the Province, was unjust, and would deter the rate payers from working the measure at all. Tin* construction and repair of main roads and main drains was therefore exwpted from the list, of the Way warden's duties. There is not, however, one word in the Bill which forbids the ratepayers, or the Way war: lens, from undertaking the repair of any portion of a main road, if it should really be their own wish to do so. I remain. Your obedient servant, A. M. 17th Alarcb, 1856.