Nelson Evening Mail. THURSDAY, AUGUST IS, 1881.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 196, 18 August 1881, Page 2

Nelson Evening Mail. THURSDAY, AUGUST IS, 1881.

Till; Evening Post of Tuesday last has au article on " The representation question," in which certain statements are made, to neglect to reply to which would be an absolute neglect of duty on our part. It allude 3, in the first place, to the dreariness of the debate on the Representation Bill, and says that the burden of many of the speeches was a piteous wail over the threatened loss of electoral privileges hitherto enjoyed, and then proceeds as follows :— « Nelson and Westland at the present time to a large extent hold in their hands the balance of power in the Legislature. It would be almost impossible to devise a division of parties which should not necessarily leave the ultimate decision practically in the hands of the Kelson and Westland members. They have learned to appreciate and value this power, which ha« enabled them to obtain a good deal of public expenditure which certainly they would not have enjoyed on the merits of the case." That any twelve members, no matter where they came from, if they combined together for the purpose, would " to a •arge extent hold the balance of power " is, of course, undeniable ; but to assert that the Kelson and Westland representatives have ever done so is simply and absolutely false Can our contemporary, in support of his assertion, quote a single instance in which they have banded themselves together " to obtain a good dca'. of public expenditure which certainly they would not have enjoyed on the merits of the case ? " We will answer the question for him. He cannot do so, simply because never, in tbe history of the New Zealaud Parliament, has there been such a combination. After arguing in favor of the population basis, the Post goes on to say : — '■ It may be that, like almost all other political principles, thi3 one is only partially sound and that, under the guise of liberty, there may ha established a very oppressive tyranny. The case as it affects Nelson and We6tland is forcibly, if somewhat speciously, put by the Nelson Mail. Our contemporary says :— 'By neglecting our interests and turning a deaf ear to oitr appeals to be included in the great public works scaeme which was to unite toe chief centres of population in the island, and to open up ccutry that is at present unavailable owing to tae difficulty of access to most parts of it, the colony as a whole has treated this particular portion of it with singular unfairness. We ara called upon to pay oar full stare towards the interest on the loan by which not only have we not benefitted, but have positively been injured, owing to other portionß of the colony being, by the expenditure of public fundfi, rendered far more attractive, thus causing our population to remain Btationary, while that in other districts has been pushed ahead with our money. And now, having been placed in this unfortunate position, we are to be punished for that which we could not avoid, but which was forced upon U3 by superior numbers, by.having our iufluence still further decreased, reduced in fact to such a degree that we shall be utterly powerless in Parliament.' The fallacy of this argument lies in the iudceuracy of its premises, whicb assume that the inferior position held by Nelson is due to the withholding of her share of the public-expendi-ture — a palpably insupportable assumption. But waiving tbe premises there is something in the argument, and it touches Wellington and Auckland as well. It is true that each of thfese Provinces is to have an extra member. But Olago and Canterbury are to hava ten additional representatives, which will give them 45 votes in the new Parliament. Those Provinces, therefore, with the assistance of Marlborougb, which would be a tolerably safe ally, would hold an absolute majority in Parliament, and so would be supreme in power. Can that overwhelming power b 6 safely trusted to them in the interests of the colony as a whole ? That it does involve some danger to the interests of the North Island is un-qut-stionable, and we observe with regret that this has already been made the text fcr raising anew the old pernicious cry of " Separation.". This cannot be too strenuously deprecated. Still it is idle to deny that the immense political preponderance which the South now claims by virtue of its numerical superiority in population would, if conceded, be fraught with material risk to the welfare of the North. The forcible remarks of the Nelson Mail just quoted scarcely apply to Nelson, but they do apply very pointedly indeed to the. case of Wellington. Canterbury and Otago already have' their 800 mileß of working railways, and a complete trunk line and hosts of branches. Wellington has but 65 : | miles of main line and a 3-mile branch, but it is to have no more. If the people want their trunk lines made, they are to do it themselves. Such has been the position hitherto. What will it bo when Canterbury and CKago possess absolute power ?" The argument we used is allowed to be forcible, but we are accused of being inaccurate in our premises. Let us, therefore, state these premises very clearly. They are s that the public works policy was (to quote' the words of Sir Julius Yogel in his letter to Mr Curtis) "based on a bargain that should be held sacred, the purport of whicb was that there should ba a trunk line through each Island. * * * * * The meaning of the trunk line in the Souih Island was that Nelson, Hokitika, Blenheim, Picton, Christchurcb, Timaru, Oamaru, Dunedirx, , Milton, and Invercargill should be brought into intercommunication. On this basis it was that many parts of the country consented to railways being pushed on more vigorously in other parts. To ignore this compact is to make a united community impossible." This compact was deliberately broken, the wealthier and more numerously represented portion of the colony picked all the plums for themselves, proceeded with branch lines here and branch lines there and absolutely refused to adhere to the bargain that there should be a trunk Hoe through the Island. By doing this thej made their districts more attractire to populitiori, and places such as Nelson which wera cheated out of their rights were left stationary and stagnant. Had tbe railways been carried out as originally intended, both our town and country population would ha*/e largely increased, and when the population basis of representation came to be applied we should not be found in the sorry plight to which we have been reduced by the refusal cf the House of Representatives to admit the sacredneas of the bargain entered into in 1870. These are our premises. Wherein lies their inaccuracy ? Having duped himself into the belief that byautroke of the pen he bad disposed of our facts, our eomemporary goes on to deal with our argument, which, in the coolest manner possible, he appropriates to bia own use. This is a forcible argument, he says, but it has nothing to do with Nelson though it does apply to Wellington, and r.s a reason why it does so he adduces the fact that while there are hundreds of miles of rail ways in Otago and CiCterb-iry, there arc o»ly*GsJ in Wellington. Nelson has only 22 miles ; there fr.re, if the wrier will work out the rulr-of-Ihree sum ho himscif hits, unconsciously ptrhaps, set, ho will find on hia own showing, that oar argument, the application of which to Wellington he freely admits, applies with just throe times the force to Nelson. Despite the endeavors of the Fast to depreciate our premises, and its attempt to steal our argument, wo adhere most Biroogly to both, and we repeat with increased emphasis cur hope that our representatives will manfully fight tho battle of ] their constituent?, and that they will not hesitate to turn to account whatever weapons the rules of Parliamentary procedure will permit the use of. When a garotter is at a man'g throat with the demand " Your money or your life," he who is assailed does not stay to think whether the stick he carries in his hand is too heavy a one to use against a fellow creature, but he strikes vigorously and determinediy in self defence. The Nelßon electors are in the position of, tbe one who is attacked, with this difference," that the demand

made upon them is not " Yonr money or your hie, bufYourmocey andyonr life," forif the ■kill is carried as it now stands we shall most assuredly be shut out of all participation in future loans, to the interest of which we shall be compelled to contribute, but we shall, in addition, be condemned to political death. 'I hc-refore, we must defend ourselves as best we can, and not be too particular about ths weapons we use.

A correspondent writes : — " I have lately heard that a new sheep disease, previously unknown in these parts, has made its appearance within the last few months, and is commonly spoken of as " Coast Disease." Cannot our inspectors give some information as to the origio, history, symptoms, and treatment of this malady ? J> r A cleverly written sketch of Mr Sheehan by "Ignotus" will be found on the fourth page. Madame Lottie Wilmot will lecture on "Forbidden Fruit" at the Theatre next Sunday evening. During her stay in Nelson she will hold spiritualistic and mesmeric seauces. 1 The Hart family gave another of their entertainments at the Theatre last night, when their performances were highly appreciated by all wbo were present. For touighfc the best programme of the season has been arranged, the details of whicb will be found in our advertising columns and should induce a large attendance. An oil painting of tho Bishop of Nelson by B. A Branfill is now on view at Mr Jackson*s shop, and is well worthy of inspection.