SEPARATION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 177, 10 June 1862, Page 4

SEPARATION.

This action taken in Otago by the advocates of Separation has at last aroused so much attentipn that nearly all the papers in the colony are teeming with articles on the subject. At one time we proposed reproducing these, but their number is such as to make it impossible, and in the general allusion we now intend to make to them we by no means assume to deal with them exhaustyely. To pretend to do so within the limits of the space we could sj>are would be paying our contemporaries an, ill compliment. But it is to be borne in mind that no two persons ever concieved exactly the same view of one subject, and that a difference of opinion on details does not necessarily argue a want of concord in the main. Again, assuming that certain details are argued to a logical sequence against Separation, it does not necessarily follow that the said details are of sufficient weight to militate against the broader arguments applying to the question as a whole. "We make these remarks because some of our contemporaries appear inclined to seize upon points which really little affect the broad interests of the question; and, having argued these to their own. satisfaction," they pretend to transfer their deductions on the minor points, to that of the subject treated as a whole.

Some of our contemporaries happily supply materials with which to defeat their own arguments. For instance, the New Zealandcr, amidst a mass of peevish ill-humor, hangs on to the one argument of the' ingratitude of the South in desiring to separate itself from its former benefactor, the North. But of the nature of the benefits accorded, for which the gratitude is claimed, the same paper affords a very accurate idea. In a recent number it urged that the Province should undertake certain buildings required for the purposes of both the local and general Governments. It considered the expense should properly fall on the general revenue, but with the present disposition for Separation, forseeing that this would be aefused; it recommended the Provincial Council to charge itself with the expense as it would afterwards supply a strong argument against the removal of the seat of Government. This is a sample of the acts for which. gratitude is asked, acts performed solely for the purpose of establishing indirect claims, where no direct ones could be pretended. When Auckland asks ior compensation for these

buildings, it will be interesting to tarn to the New Zculauders columns, smil point out the disinterested motives, that led to the expenditure. The Press argues the question of Separation with its usual ability, and if wi may be forgiven the expression, its usual refinement or sublimation of argument, which makes its reasoning more admirable as a work of art than useful for any p acticai ;>urP ose> Yet is the Press not without an eye to the main chance. Amidst nrach ctherealisation on certain assumed future results to attend the union of the two Islands, our contemporary very clearly indicates that if the seat of Government is meant to be at Canterbury he will by no means be opposed to Separation. "It seems to us absurd," he says, "to shirk " the question of the locality of the proposed Government." Dividing our contemporary's reasoning into the two classes, the visionary and the practical, we have for the first a very telling refutation .in the second. The visions of future greatness as an independent nation with which Separation would interfere, would surely not be less interfered with because the seat of Government were at Christchureh instead of some other point in the Middle Island. If "the bird in the hand. is preferrable in the first case, it would be equally so in the second. Our contemporary reminds us of the vendor of glasses in the Arabian Uights Entertainments, whose powerful imagination led him to neglect his business in delightful reveries of the profits that would attend the constant doubling of his stock-in-trade. At last, when like the Press he had arrived at an independent principality, he kicked' his foot out, and smashed all the glass ware on which he had built the foundation of his hopes. The Prpss gloats over visionary pictures of future welfare with the two islands united, but every now and then, demolishes his Chateauen Espagne when the reflection of Canterbury as the Seat of Government gleams across his mind. To carry the simile yet further, we should say to him, keep on selling your glasses, without further reflection on possible future results. If the Sepa-' ration of the Middle Island will conduce to its prosperity, promote that, at all events, and when the time comes for independence, the organic changes that it will involve, will be far more serious than such as would attend a re-union of the .two Islands. Surely it is illogical to retarct".the prosperity which will lead to the proposed desired end.

This same question—future independence— has been so much talked of that it is worth while to consider it in another light. Let us presume that England says " when you desire to cut the painter you are welcome to do so."' Is it too much to ask now, before the possible spread of a rampant radicalism, that every security should ;bs kept in view to prevent that independence being prematurely demanded ? The advocates of the Union will not deny that .independence should only be sought by the joint concurrence of both Islands, and this concurrence will be as readily assertable by ths two Islands when separated as. it would were they i joined. Again supposing the Islands ripe for independence, we presume it will be allowed that-precautionary measures should be taken to place upon a clear basis the relative positions of the two Islands; and willnot the negotiation of this point be more'easily conducted if the Islands are enabled to deal with one another separated, than if they had to meet it by an internal discussion? But the Press shows how little weight it attaches to its ,own drafts, on the future, when it suggests as the cure to the evils which it admits exists, that each Province should be established into a separate Coloity,—at least such we take to be the meaning of its proposal, that each Province should have a LieiUenaut-Governor appointed over it. True it suggests that a Central Governor should be appointed over all; but the Press is too well acquainted with past experience in Australia to need to be told, that as the separate Provinces advanced, Lieutenant-Gover-nors would be made independent of the Governor-General. The Prass quite truly says, that the framers of the Constitution Act bad an eye to the appointment of LieutenantGovernors in each Province; but in so doing they admitted the possibility of future still further developement. Here are some extracts from speeches made on- the occision of the discussion of the Constitution Act, by which it will be observed its framers w_>re not unmindful of the demands of future progression :—- ---* Sir John Pakingtou said: — "*" It was neoessary to look forward to the gradual ncrease of the population and projpsrity of the colony. ' The government could not venture to hope that a system similar to that which, they now laid down could be regarded as a general settlement of the difficult question, as to the best manner in which the residents of the colony might conduct their nffaiw. They could only look upon it as the. commencment of a system.'' . .Mr. Adderley said:— "He regretted the very subordinate postion assigned to Ihe Provincial Legisl.'.turea." * *" The natural fuatures-of the country wove an argument for each Province to manage its own affairs." Mr. Gladstone said: — "Ho thought, however, that the "concurrent jurisdiction" of the general■ aud local government?, would, as usual, prove to be conflicting jurisdiction." After all in its practical suggestion, the Press only goes furtjher than the separationists desire to go. It asks that each Province be placed in«train for its erection into a distinct colony whilst the separationists only go in for the whole of the Middle Island being made a distinct colony. The right to demand a further subsequent separation they probably do not deny. But the Press asks at once for that dismemberment, because whilst it admits tacitly that the interests of the Middle Island will be served by the separation desired, it fears that Christchurcli will not be selected as the capital town. The separationists would be disr engenuoiis to give the pledge the Press desires, because they should know that it would be a pretence, and that the Imperial Government would not conceive itself bound in the slightest degree by it. The first Governor sent out would be allowed the choice of the seat of government, untrammelled by any intnr-ipsos pledges the Provinces might make. It ia quite likely that as in Canada some new place along the coast will be selected, bo as i not to interfere with the vested rights of