New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1875.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4395, 21 April 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1875.

The Dunedin Press has been sorely exercised by a speech delivered at Caversham recently by Mr. Robt. Stout, Provincial Solicitor of Otago. For a wonder, the three daily newspapers published in Dunedin were unanimous in condemning Mr. Stout's political heresies. The Star ridiculed his provincialism, the Guardian exposed the crudities of his land tenure theory, and the Daily Times would not have his education tax on any account. All this is very discouraging to a young and enthusiastic politician. It would have had a depressing effect upon most men, but Mr. Stotjt is not easily put down. He did not take his punishment kindly, but "wrote to the papers" and invited them to acknowledge themselves wholly in error, which of course the clever editors would not do. Altogether the Caveisham speech produced a good deal of lively writing. But we are mainly concerned with the political bearing of the speech. Mr. Stout is a rising politician, and he is not unnaturally looked up to by the Provincialists as a possible leader. What he says, therefore, has considerable political significance. Mr. Stout is opposed to the abolition of Provincial Government. He thinks that it is the very best form of local government that could be devised, and does not doubt that it has been administered in New Zealand with enormous success. Hence he is opposed to any change in the Constitution Indeed, the evil consequences which he thinks would result from the abolition of Provincial Governm<git even in tho North Island are somewhat appaling. The gaols, schools, and benevolent institutions would be shut up. On this part of,his speech the Guardian happily remarks : Upon tho provincial question, we are pleased to observe that Mr. Stout delivered himself more like a politician, and less after the fashion of an advocate, than has been his wont on previous occasions. Nevertheless, we cannot acquit him of the charge of indulging in sundry illogical fallacies. Wherefore it is essential that, in order to be consistent, the advocates of centralisation should insist on tho cessation of the functions at present discharged by the Provincial Governments, "and that gaols, schools, and benevolent institutions should not be kept up any longer?" We fail to perceive the application of the argument. So far as we know, there is nothing in tho soil or climate of New Zealand to render provincial institutions more necessary than in any other colony; and other colonies which have not provincial institutions are in full possession of all the advantages (inclusive even of gaols) which we also have. As to gaols, there is but one opinion on the subject, aftd that is, that the sooner they pass under tho control of the Colonial Government the better ; and the same may be said In regard to schools. Benevolent institutions are but poor-houses with a less displeasing name ; and no matter whence the subsidy comes, they will continue to exist pretty much as they now do, whatever may happen to the Constitution of New Zealand. What does the Provincial Government really do for either the gaol, the schools, or the Benevolent Institution, beyond finding the money? It exerciees no real supervision over either. When, therefore, we find the Provincial Solicitor making a "point" of «n argument so weak and untenable as this, we are justified in assuming that he is in the desperate position of an advocate who, having "no case," resorts to the Btale device of abusing the other side. The Guardian likewise disposes of Mr. Stout's difficulty regarding the localisation of the land revenue, in the following terse sentences, which embody, we believe, the opinion of the great majority of people in Otago : Another bogie conjured up for the occasion was the possible absorption of the local land fund by the General Government. "A difficulty would," he alleged, "result in regard to the allocation of the land revenue ;" and he proceeded to argue that, if Provincial Councils were abolished, it must either be made a part of tho general revenue of the colony, "or separate accounts would require to be opened, and the General Assembly would have to decide what portion of the land revenue should go to the North, and what to the Middle Island." Again we ask—wherefore ? Are there not now separate accounts opened for each province 1 And is each province of the exact and only suitable dimensions for the allocation of the land revenue ? If it is admitted that they might be enlarged, as by the union of Otago and Southland, or reduced in area, as by the excision of Westland from Canterbury, what exists to prevent shires taking the place of provinces, each with its local land revenue, which is the very thing sought to be effected ? Mr. Stout, and those who are with him on this question, do not see, nor do they desire to see, that one of the most important results hoped for from the abolition of the provinces, and the substitution of shires, is the greater localisation of the land revenue ; and that it is for this very reason that the dwellers In the interior are so willing to accept the proposals of the Ministry. The complaint of the country is, that Provincialism is Centralism exaggerated; and it is from this that relief is prayed for. It is quite evident from the tone of the Dunedin newspapers that the Provincialists are not making converts to their opinions. Mr. Stout has been put forward as their mouthpiece, and he has failed to convince any one in the province that Superintendentalism is a system which ought to be upheld in the interest of the public.