The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XII, Issue 723, 12 October 1859, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times.

.. ■ . • Wednesday, October 12, 1859. In the midst of the business consequent upon the Session of the Provincial Council in pur own Province, we cannot but cast a somewhat anxious glance at the state of affairs at Wellington. There the Constitution is indeed on its trial. The breach between the Superintendent and the Council is becoming wider and wider; and after the Superintendent had been expending" the public revenue without appropriation for one year and nine months it has absolutely become a question between him and the Council, as to whether the Superintendent legally can or cannot so spend money, and by what means he is to be restrained from illegal expenditure. , • We have no wish now to enter on the question of who was to blame at' the beginning of the war, or of the merits and demerits of the present Government of Wellington. These are questions which the people of Wellington must determine for themselves/ It is true that the Superintendent has appealed to the people on the subject of bis difference with the Council, and declares himself willing- to appeal to them again. 'Dr. Featherston conceives that a power in the hands of the Superintendent of dissolving the Council would be a solution of the difficulties that are constantly occurring. We believe that the root of the evil lies in the anomaly of*an elected head of an Executive surrounded by! institutions otherwise of English origin. HN'os other provision of;'our Constitution fits in with this foreign element, and the momeht a strain comes the weakness of the machine is apparent. Be this as it may, we are justified by experience in .our often expressed belief that nothing but the greatest forbearance on both sides will allow of the successful carrying" out of even a shadow of so-called responsible Government in the' Provinces.

But the question now raised at Wellington is more serious lhati any heretofore raised,' and the-manner in which it has heen handled makes it more serious still. Of course there are many features of the case which may not be. brought with sufficient prominence to the notion of persons "tit a distance; but on the other hand it k possible that where both parties are, as at Wellington, worked up to a white heat, a looker on may see the g-arne as clearly as.those playing-; the more so if it be one iii which he has a considerable stake. It is vfry (ivuhmt that every province in New Zealand must be deeply interested in tho question now raised at Wellington. We confess ourselves somewhat puzzled to understand the position assumed by both parties. The assumption that the Superintendent is not amenable to law for spendingthe public funds without the -approbation of

the Council appears to us utterly untenable. What can be meant by the powers given by law to the Provincial 'Council ? Are they a dead letter? And'if they are real powers, is ,it possible that there are not means to enforce them? 'Mr. Wakefield's bill is a surplusage; the necessity for such a measure is imaginary. Supposing1 the Provincial Council were the proper body to pass such a bill, some of its provisions would certainly appear likely to create mischief. The office of Superintendent would be untenable if he were to be placed at the mercy of any hostile elector, whenever he took on himself a necessary responsibility. Is .there not already sufficient facility for checking1 an improper use of the Superintendent's position with respect to the funds of the province? Nothing-has yet transpired in the Supreme Court which leads us .to conclude that it is not possible, if good cause be shown, to obtain an injunction restraining a Superintendent from illegal expenditure. It is true tluit'two attempts have been made at Wellington to obtain an injunction, but we only gather from the result of" these attempts that they were not conducted with sufficient care. In the case argued before Judge /Jresson, an injunction was refused ■ because sufficient cause was not shown to grant one, but his Honor distinctly guarded, himself from being understood to say that a case might not be made out for an injunction. The case on which application was made to Judge Johnston broke down on a technicality. The fact is that in a case df such difficulty and importance as that of an application for an injunction to restrain a Superintendent from spending public money, more care must bo bestowed by the applicants than has yej;-been given. No judge will lightly, or without sufficient cause shown, grant an injunction that is likely to lead to jsueh* serious' results. As far as can be gathered from the scanty reports of the proceeding!?, no. case for an induction has been properly brought before the Supreme Court, mi the opinion of the judge. That no case could be so brought is'not a logical conclusion from what has passed; and we are loth to believe that there is no legal remedy in the event of a proved and evident breach of constitutional law.

That this question must again come before the Supreme Court in a definite shape is now pretty: evident; and if the Supreme Court decides that there is really no power of en. quiry by law what is the evident meaning of the constitution, then the whole question must be brought without delay before the General Assembly.