THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4916, 23 December 1876, Page 2

THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TBIE3. Sie, —Mr. Travers' letter on " The Constitutional Question" is certainly rather startling to ordinary British subjects, who for the most part have hitherto considered her Majesty, and not his Excellency, as the head of their body politic. It has caused me" to re-peruse the Constitution Act after the lapse of a considerable time, during which I have neglected that wholesome piece of literature. There it doubtless says, in section 32, that the General Assembly shall consist of the Governor, the Legislative Council, and House of Representatives. The Governor is a person whose preexistence is acknowledged by the Act—he is not the creation'' of the Act. He is subsequeatly, in an Imperial Act, defined a 3 "the officer lawfully administering the Government of any colony." The word " administering" itself implies that the officer referred to is & servant—the servant or agent of her Majesty doubtless, for he receives his commission from her. It is expressly laid down in the Constitution Act that the most important functions of governing have to be performed by the Governor in her' Majesty's name. Parliament has to be summoned by the Governor in her Majesty's name, Bills have to be assented to by her Majesty through the Governor, supplies have to be voted to her Majesty. Travel- * ling outside of the Act, we find letters patent, Crown grants, and all writs issuing in her Majesty's name..:All these luoto and many others seem to point to. one conclusion—that the Governor only holds his position by virtue of nis being the. Queen's representative. The whole tenor of the Constitution Act points to this. But Mr. Travers would have us to believe that because section 44 contains the words, "and the Governor may at his pleasure prorogue or dissolve the General Assembly," the Queen is derogating from her grant when the Governor prorogues; Parliament in her name, and as she might have done if personally present. I understand him to state this when te writes that "judged by the test of these principles, the late prorogation must, unless it can be supported as a personal act of the Governor, be considered as a nullity." Is there a&y failure of analogy between the case in. point and that of everyday life, when A.B. appoints an attorney C.D. to "employ and dismiss servants, and -at his discretion to sell .lands, execute conveyances, and other documents?" Every person knows that a document executed under such a power would, though the discretion lay in the attorney, yet be the personal act of the principal, and the execution would be void if it did not appear as such., And moreover, with regard to the-Ministerial acts of employing and dismissing servants, a merchant in "Wellington holding such a power could exercise it well enough in the Wairarapa without going there, simply by writing to someone there to act as his mouthpiece, just as the principal would do if he wished to save himself a journey. *~V I may here point out that the Act makes no mention whatever of the mode in which the prorogation is take place. Parliament has to be prorogued or put off for a time, and the Governor is the officer appointed to see that it is done, at his pleasure. Having used his pleasure or discretion, the rest seems to me to. ,be merely ministerial; and whether what is called the prorogation, and which is the signifying to the Parliament that they are prorogued, is done by proclamation or by commission seems unimportant so long as Parliament thoroughly understands . the pleasure of the Governor. There is no doubt that Parliament understood it in.this case, as even Sir George Grey went ofi without a murmur. The points raised by Mr.. Travers have caused considerable uneasiness. Judging from the tenor of his letter, he himself does not seem sure of his grounds. What" good'has he done by lending his name to suggestions which if they were authoritative must nevertheless be mischievous ? The present discussion reminds me of a very, unjust remark made by a friend of mine, a member of the House of Assembly. He dropped into my house for a chat, after being bored by Rees, and commenced his conversation by saying, " Confound those lawyers.. They are always raising quibbles and taking up the time of the House."—l am, &c, , Quest. [We are sorry that by pressure on our space yesterday this letter, which was received simultaneously with Mr. Fitz Gerald's, was crowded out.—Ed. N.Z.T.]