Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4243, 26 October 1874, Page 3

The Wakaiip Mail may bo taken as a fair exponent of public opinion in the mining districts of Otago. It is conducted with very considerable ability and moderation. In a recent issue' the Mail had a leading article on the proposed Constitutional amendment, in which the following statement is made:—“We fully believe “ that, in their inmost hearts, the warmest “advocates for the, continuance of Pro- “ vincial Institutions must have sore mis- “ givings that they are but beating the “ air. Their loud and blatant talk ; their ‘ ‘ continual begging the question ; their “desperate onslaughts upon the majority ‘ 1 in the Assembly upon this question, all “ testify that they are but attempting to “avert an impending day of reckoning “by procrastinating and postponing it.” No one can doubt this. Even the Superintendent of Canterbury, it is rumored, is giving in. He is shifting his ground, we learn, and thinks that Separation is the only fair solution of the question. But Separation is now impossible. There are financial difficulties in the way which cannot be overcome ; and there is also the partnership estate, which must bo fairly divided, should the southern provinces insist upon setting up political business on their own account. Then, again, there are the impecunious provinces of Nelson, Westland, and Marlborough. What is to be done with them? Their condition is no better than that of the North Island, and the settlers are very explicit in condemning the provincial system of Government. In any event, the provinces named would oppose Separation. They would receive scant courtesy from Canterbury and Otago, if they went to them for pecuniary aid to carry on their local institutions. It is idle, therefore, to revive the ■ agitation for Separation. The North Island, and three out of the five provinces in the Middle Island, would combine to prevent it. But we are by no means certain that Mr. Superintendent Eolleston would have any considerable following on such a question in his ovjrn province. Canterbury has always stood up manfully for the unity of the colony, and we cannot conceive it deserting its traditional policy for the sole purpose (if conserving the authority of the Superintendent. On the other hand, Mr. Superintendent Macanduew would have a very weak party in Otago should he adopt the Separation ticket. Superintendentalism is nearly played out in that province. At present, there is little or no interest taken in politics in Otago, for tke reason stated by the Bruce Herald, that the people are too busy and prosperous to, trouble themselves much about forms of government; but when the question happens to be raised at a public meeting, the feeling is invariably against,the Superintendental party. Eeverting to the article in the Wakatip Mail, we find it combating the argument of the' ultra-provincialisls, to the effect that there is no precedent for the, proposed Constitutional amendment, and dismissing it as being beside the question. “ It is only intended to procure delay,” remarks the Mail. ‘‘ So far as wo can “ judge,” it continues, “the various con- “ stituencies are approving of the policy “ of the majority of the Assembly when- “ ever opportunity occurs. An appeal, “ therefore, under such circumstances “ may be a jump • from the frying- “ pan into the fire.- We ourselves be- “ lieve that we shall hear a great deal “less about this now much-talked-of ‘ ‘ question of appeal long previous to the “ next meeting of the Assembly. More “ members have yet 1 to meet their con- “ stituencies, and this time-honored ob- “ servance should, at such a tide of public “ affairs, bo demanded of every ropresen- “ tative, be he a member of the Assembly “orof a Provincial Council. We think “ that by such a line of action the bulk “ of the constituencies will be found “ endorsing the proposed constitutional “ changes. If they do so, then an appeal “ to the country will be rendered un- “ necessary, and legislation on the sub- “ ject need not be delayed or protracted.” This is a practical view of the question, and one which we believe will be generally endorsed in Otago. Indeed, it is impossible for any one perusing the newspapers of the colony not to come to the same conclusion as our Queenstown contemporary, “that the country is in favor of a “ change from the present dual Govern- “ ment to that of a central one with “ localisation of administration.”