The Nelson Evening Mail. TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1870.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume V, Issue 115, 17 May 1870, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1870.

It appears that all the wrangling and discussion that have hitherto distinguished the present session of the Council are to culminate to-night in a grand onslaught upon the Superintendent. The events connected with tbe resignation of Mr. Frankiyn have turned up most opportunely for those who were looking for some advantageous ground from whence they might attack the head of the Government, and notice has been given that it will be moved to-night that his actions in this matter are deserving of the gravest censure. According to the AttorneyGeneral's reading of the Act, the Superintendent, in permitting Mr. Frankiyn to withdraw his resignation, did not net in accordance with the strict letter of the law, and this is a decision to which we must all bow, but it is as well that the real facts of the case should be thoroughly known in order that the action which has led to all this disturbance may be viewed in another light but that of dry, hard, unbending law. The facts then are these ; — Mr, Frankiyn, at the time a violent opponent of the Superintendent, sent in his resignation of his seat in the Council, ond at the same time wrote to Mr. Kynnersley stating that his object in doing so was to allow him (Mr. Kynnersley) to be elected in his stead. Without loss of time Mr. Kynnersley telegraphed to Mr. Frankiyn to the effect that he did not intend to become a candidate, and witbin two hours from tbe . time that the letter containing the resignation was put into the hands of the Superintendent, he received a telegram from Mr. Frankiyn asking, if not too late, to be permitted to withdraw his resignation. The Superintendent, taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, and actuated by a desire to act in perfect equity and good faith towards a political opponent, decided on allowing the withdrawal. The Attor-ney-General, as we have said, has given his verdict against Mr. Curtis, but it must be highly satisfactory to that gentlemac to know that he has on his side one who was spoken of by Mr. Luckie the other day as the highest authority in the colony on questions of Parliamentary usage, and the mere fact of having the opinion of such an authority in his favor must be sufficient to convince the Superintendent and all who are not irrevocably opposed to bim, that, viewed dispasionately, his action on the occasion in question was not such as to be deserving of the " gravest censure." Iv the discussion of this question we shall hear, as we have already heard, a great deal about the vast constitutional principle that has been violated. This is a high sounding phrase and one that might possibly have great influence, but if it could be shown that those who make use of it to serve their own purposes had condoned the offeuce of which they now so loudly complain, it would lose some of , its weight. It has always appeared to us a strange aud unaccountable mystery, that the spirit of enquiry which urged Mr. Donne to move for the papers connected with Mr. Franklyn's resignation, should have descended upon that gentleman's head at the precise moment when he and his colleagues were smarting under unexpected defeat. It was

impossible that between the time of Mr. Franklyn's vote, and of , Mr. Donne's notice of motion, any information, on the] subject of the resignation could havej reached the latter gentleman's ears, and we may therefore naturally conclude that ' whatever knowledge he had of what had taken place must have been in his possession prior to the debate on the no confidence motion. How then is it to be accounted for that, if there were the slightest suspicion in the mind of Mr. Donne or in those of his colleagues that by Mr. Franklyn's taking his seat in' the Council a vital constitutional principle was being set at defiance, they did not at once take steps to ascertain the truth and thus set the question at rest ? By their silence on a subject of such magnitude, they were, as we have said before,, condoning the offence ; they were actually encouraging the violation of the constitutional principle which has suddenly assumed such vast importance in their eyes, and yet, strange to say, it was only when Mr. Franklyn recorded his vote against them that they awoke to the weighty responsibility which rested on their shoulders. It is, perhaps, hard to say so, but there really appears to be a very strong and well-connected chain of circumstantial evidence in favor of the generally accepted belief that had Mr. Frankiyn's vote been reversed, this great constitutional principle out of which so much political capital is sought to be made, would have been consigned to that limbo which has proved the receptacle of so many principles which have proved inconvienent to those who once professed to be guided by them. The Opposition imagine they j have a fair handle to work at — !by all means let them use it — but, believing as we do that many of the members were at the beginning of the session acquainted with the fact that Mr. Franklyn bad tendered his resignation, although they may not have been aware of the detaikj we are not to be blinded by the indignant cry of "Violation of constitutional principles" that has been so cleverly raised.