Otago Daily Times. "Inveniam viam out faciam." DUNEDIN, TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1862.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 156, 16 May 1862, Page 4

Otago Daily Times. "Inveniam viam out faciam." DUNEDIN, TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1862.

Pjjhhavs the strangest phase of the democracy, the freedom-loving people of Victoria are so fond of vaunting, is the crusade which lias lately been commenced against the Tress, the popularly supposed engine of freedom. The Victorian people may be compared to the Turkish despot who would put a bow string round his vizior's neck, and telling him to say what Jis liked would tug at the string at the first unpleasant allusion. So it ever is. the extremes of Democracy and Tyranny meet jn common union, over a common enemy. The conservative party in Victoria, which is only conservative because a more democratc party arose to take the wind out of its safls t is shaking hands with the extreme, radical party over a crusade against their common tormentors the Press in general, the Argus in particular. It need not to be said that the Conservative party adds ingratitude to its share in the transaction ;— that, one might wel] devine—for who so bitter as an estranged friend. .The Argus was a friend so long as by its powerful articles it fulminamated against the Democratic Ministry, and paved the way to office of the Conservative party, But there its uses ended, and on the same principle which led the Borgia to make the first victim of the architect, who designed the gradually contracting prison—the cell that day by day became smaller, until on the seventh day the person immured found himself crushed to pieces in a solid stone coffin : the same principle which induced him to make the inventor of this refined means of torture the first victim, for fear he should build another like it, makes the Ministry, that the Argus wrote into power, seek to destroy the influence which might build up another ministry. And so it comes to pass that conservatives and democrats, radicals and liberals, and that large 3lass, which we may term hermaphrodites of all parties, for once agree, and arm against the commonly recognised enemy.

The Argus laid itself open to an attack by making use of an expressiosi which we are free to admit was imjournalistic—"privileged ruffians." These, it said were liable to be ■' pitchforked" into the House, and that ip would be unsafe to entnfst them with power, We defy any person Kteifally construing the sentence, to prove a larger meaning in it. But it unfortunately happened that in near proximity to the sentence containing the words ,we have alluded to, occurred the name of Mr. Frazer. This gentleman chose to ponsider that the remark applied to himself, and when he told the House so, the House did not pay him the compliment of suggesting that it was not meant for him. We have not the pleasure of knowing Mr. Frazer, but we think we are safe in asserting from personal knowledge that there

are ninny members in the Assembly who, if their names had been where Mr. Frazcr's was, would simply have laughed at the' association, because they .would have known that by no possibility could it be construed into applying to themselves. It is astonishing. how a man will bear abuse so long as you do not tell him the truth. You may exhaust a whole lexicon of vituperation on a cabman, and he will bear it with characteristic equanimity. But. if you want to excite his ire, call him a cad, and behold how he will " let loose the dogs of war." We do not by auy means apply this philosophy to Mr, Frazer. We. do not want a visit from the Victorian Sergeant-at-Arms, but we cannot help thinking it .strange that he should appropriate to himself the phrase which displeased him. As we have said, we have not the felicity of his acquaintance, and in our ignorance, we naturally ask what kind of man

in'he. Is lie a delicate, refined :i>erson, of gentlemanly manners, low-tdn.ed.,,voice, and habits of solicitous attention to ■ personal culture. Is lie one;'"of these.; orv is he a large j)erson of rough manners, sonorous voice, course appearance, and of philosophical disregard to " the impotence of dress," "as Goldsmith terms it. ~No doubt, if he possessed all these attributes, Mr. Eraser might still be a most lqveable person ; —they would be his misfortune, or signs of eccentricity, and therefore of genius. But still there they remain, and the stage that immoral preceptor of modern times—will always persist in giving the characteristics we have mentioned to the ruffians—privileged or not privileged —who do the sanguinary work in horrorladen mclo-dramas. -

But, supposing Mr. Eraser to possess all the stage qualifications of "privileged or unprivileged ruffians," he. has still no right to assume to himself that to which he had no title, unless a self-manufactured one. In plain fact, the House took up Mr. Frazer's quarrel, because if they left him -to a Court of Justice, he could not prove that the remark complained of applied to him. The House, then, besides bei'.ig prosecutor, judge, and jury, also assumed the function of authoritative construction of doubtful expressions. We see no way how this power can be claimed, unless acquired in the ordinaiy course of Parliamentary action. Although placing itself above the law. the House should not forget some of the rules by which law is guided. What would not be considered a fact in a Court of Justice, should not have been to the House alact, without a proper process was first employed to make it so. With all due deference to Mr. Ireland's superior legal love, we think the first step that should have been taken to bring Mr. Dill's guilt home to him, was to have passeda resolution that the phrase in the Argus-must have been meant to apply to Mr. Fraser. ' It would not have been necessary to have supplied the chain of reasoning by which that result was arrived at.

Having sheeted home the guilt, having by Act of Parliament declared that, according to the Argus, Mr. Frazer was a " privileged ruffian," the.next question should have been, — was it judicious to exercise the. power which' the House assumed to have at its command ? The mere fact of having power is no excuse for using it, and this is generally understoodThe members of the Victorian Assembly are surely sufficiently versed in legal matters to know this. For instance, they might have remembered a popular example : the Vagrant Act gives the power to the magistrate to commit any person to prison who has not a recognised means of livelihood. But the members of the Assembly are not to be told that the power is seldom exerted. Thus had they the power, it should by no means have followed' that they should nse it. But very grave doubts exist as to whether they had the power. Apart from disputed interpretations of existing acts, we contend that in principle they cannot possess the authority they claim. The very nature of the utterly irresponsible power they claim, requires that it should be liable to no questioning. But their power is not beyond question, because even they will allow that they possess only a limited jurisdictionAllow that the power is liable to question in any particular, and you destroy the abstract irresponsibility under which it is claimed to be exercised.

The English Parliament can apply its jurisdiction wherever it pleases. If it be questioned, it can enforce it by arms if it wishes to do so. It owns no responsibility to any one —no one am question its authority within its own dominions, and if questioned by a foreign power it has the option of declaring war. But a Colonial Legislature is not irresponsible ; it owes its power to the English Legislature, and is therefore controllable by it and responsible to it. Now, we contend that in principle it was absolutely beyond the power of the British Parliament to delegate to the Colonial Legislature an utterly irresponsible power. It could no more do it than it could delegate to it the power to exercise its own peculiar functions. It could not give it the power to shape English laws, neither could it give it the power to trench upon its own prerogative. The power which a, legislative bodjpossesses, however much exercised, cannot be relinquished by its own Act. For instance, no legislative body could pass an act which limited its own future interference. What it made it ' could always unmake, and it could not by any means withdraw from itself the power of unmaking. Thus, whilst admitting the irresponsible exercise of power by the English Legislature, we yet say that it presents an anomaly, amounting to an impossibility, to suppose it can will away functions which only itself can possess. If the English Parliament could delegate its own functions, in contra-distinction to delegating the power which those functions empower it to confer, the functions would necessarily be limited, their whole power changed. Like the fisherman who let loose the Genius from the copper vessel in which he was confined, it might find itself forced to change places with the power it had emancipated. The Victorian Legislature has laid itself open to non-suit on every point. There was no cognisable offence to punish,—if there was an offence, it was tyranny on the part of the House.to act:on the power, it claimed,—and the tyranny was converted • into illegality because itasserted a power it did not possess.

We are requested to^all the attention of the settlers in Anderson's Bay and Tomahawk to the unnouncem nit that (D.V.) a. sermon will be delivered by Mr. J. Gilbert, in the school-roam, Anderson's Bay, on Sunday next, the 18th inst.; servif-e.to commence ut half-past 2 o'clock. We understand that the BisbopofChristchurr.il may be expected to arrive in Dimediii by ih<j Airedale, aivl that-; the corner stone of the new Episcopal Church will be laid shortly alter his ariivii.l. Much interest was mnnifosted by the public on the trial of Gnrrett at the Supreme Comt yesterday, and the Court was densely crowded during the.whole of the trial. Many had gone, no doubt, in anticipation of a " scene,'' for the most extraordinary reports as to the impudence, daring, and •' cheek" of the prisoner had been circulated, and it was expected that Garrett would have caused some disturbance. So far from this being the ease, the prisoner conducted himself with the greatest deference to the Court, and beyond being betrayed occasionally into a little warmth of expression, said nothing more than might have been uttered by any of the legal gentlemen present. Garrctt was brought into Court iv handcuffs, which were taken off when lie was placed in the dock, lie conducted his own defenszc, and in liia ■cross-examination and general remarks was scarcly less alilc thaii a practised lawyer. At the sale of rural lands, which took place at the Land Office yesterday, 4,777 acres were disposed of, realizing a total sum of ■ £4,821 17s 3d There were three sections sold by auction ; one of 50 acres realized 30s per acre ; one of 50 acres> 20s ; and one'of 97 acres, 21s. The principal sales were.in the Clutha district. A considerable nmhber of the applications were not taken up.