THE REUNION DEBATE.

Southland Times, Issue 1179, 10 December 1869, Page 3

THE REUNION DEBATE.

{Continued from last issue.) Mr M'Grr,i.irEAr, in answer to a statement of Dr Menzies, said that Otago provided for her schools without assessment — by the proceeds from land appropriations for the purpose. The hon. member might know that in his own district there were two such schools. Dr Menzies : Yes ; assisted by the se ttlers. Mr M'Gixlivray admitted they were, and wished they could get the same. He had on one occasion made it his business to see how a school could be got up in a district, and he found it, as one said to him : "We need a school and a teacher ; but as the Government have no money, how are we to get them ? " He then proceeded to say that he did not know much of railways ; but this he knew, that it required a very great deal of traffic to make one pay ; and he would ask what capitalist in his senses would think of investing in the railway here ? Past debts had been much dwelt on ; but he thought the question was, what are the debts now, and is the province able to pay them ? Taking this view, in comparing Southland with Otago, he found the great practical difference that the latter was able to meet its liabilities, and the former was not. The unionists, he said, had been charged with having but one idea ; well, he would say, give them a better, and number two would soon drive out number one. If it was right for Scotland to unite with England, why was it wrong for a weaker province to unite wiih a stronger. Their deprivation of privileges had been enlarged on ; but he would like to know of what privileges they would be deprived ? And with regard to the commercial interests of Southland, he opined that, if it was a part of Otago, the interests of the one would be the interests of the other Then, he asked, what could be the use of talking so much about exports, when they had no roads ? Ask the company at the Mataura why they abandoned their operations on a large scale there — was it not because they had no roads ? Regarding the income from the sale of Crown lands, he held that it was not to be depended on, and .pointed out that the question before them was not how things might have been done, but how things are. He regarded the arguments advanced against re-union as frivolous, which he would not be warranted in occupying the time of the House in answering, merely remarking that if its opponents were going to save them from suicide, it ■was merely that they might be brought | to a public execution. After some further remarks, he combatted the idea that it was political independence which was being fought for. Political freedom, he Baid, would .be just as intact as now, though all the province were annihilated. He went at some length into this view of ■the ease, and argued tliat without retmibn there was no prospect of the Grown lands being sold, as the General Government woulcLnot deal_thenx out 60, or TOO-acre sections — not likely. After referring to the land laws, and his belief that population had been attracted to Otago more by the goldfields than the superiority of its land, he alluded to the complaints made in Otago about the roads, contrasting their condition with those in Southland — pointing to the great difference between Oamaru and Invercargill, as a proof of what was doing in Otago for the outlying districts. As to a complaint about the road from Dunedin to Oamaru, he only wished there was as good a one between Invereargill and the Molyneux. The hon. member Dr Menzies might then roll into town in his carriage, instead of having to make a toilsome journey on horseback, provided he did not refuse to travel on a road made under Otago auspices. (Laughter.) He admitted that there was no guarantee that the conditions of re-union would be fulfilled, but there would be exactly the same guarantee there was for the conditions of any other law of the land. They had read the people of Otago a lesson as separationists, and it was his solemn conviction that on re-uniting they would be com- , pelled to deal justly. If they did not, there was this guarantee — repeal of the union. After a few words in defence of the squatters, he gave reasons why they should be in favor of re-union j opposed the notion that any particular town might be considered at present as likely to be the future capital, instancing the case of Ottawa in Canada as a proof; and concluded by stating his belief that the General Government had said — not in words, but by action — " We have no wish to come down heavily on you for your debt, but here is a door open for your relief," and the simple question was, were they or were they not prepared to enter iv ? (Applause.) Mr Basstian moved an amendment deferring the further consideration of the matter until after the next meeting of the Provincial Council of Otago. He complained that information which had been given to the Commissioners of Otago had been withheld from the Council. He considered that decision this session would be premature. The sense of this province on the question had been taken ; let the opinion of the people of Otago be also taken, and we should then meet on equal terms — Otago had first invited us. Our difficulties all arose out of the railway project, against which he had strongly cautioned them. The Hon. Dr Menzies seconded the amendment. Mr Calder opposed it. Much required to be done before reaching the Assembly, when the final step would be taken. The amendment sought to retard the progress, so that they would be unable to co-operate with Otago. Hon. members asked for time. He had stated from the first that there was no wish to hurry the debate ; and if time was merely wanted to examine documents or proofs, by all means let the House adjourn fx'om day to day. But it was

something to the shame of hon. members that on a question on which the House was elected they should come forward and say, " We are not prepared yet to decide." Why did they appear on the hustings and give expression to the decided opinion sought from them if they were not prepared? Further delay could only have this effect. The Commissioners having agreed on a basis, the Council met to consider it, foiled to do so, and pushed the matter off. It was a perfect insult to the other side, and must lead to an entire rupture. After so much had been said on the hustings about putting our own shoulder to the wheel, &c, he had no doubt some other scheme had been devised for their relief— but where was it ? They had heard nothing of it, so the proposition just made was a piece of the greatest coolness. It was entirely out of course, and not at all what wa3 expected from those who gained their seats on the o-round that against this scheme of reunion they would set another plan for the relief of the province. There was no doubt of their being bound to this, but by the amendment they shirked the duty entirely. The re-unionists had been charged with having but one idea. From their 3 course of action, the other party would seem to have none at all ; and now it would be perhaps confessed that his side of the question was not represented by wooden heads. (Applause from the j strangers, which was suppressed.) It showed on which side intelligence had been manifested, and by which side broad and intelligible views had been presented. It was quite true the Commissioners got what they had a right to ask for from a defaulting province — a financial statement; and what satisfied them might surely satisfy those gentlemen on the other side who complained of the want of a committee of inquiry. Then it was wanted to know the value of the assets — who was to do it ? It would be fruitless, barren — a mere waste of time — to engage in that committee, because it could bring out nothing different from what had been already brought up, &o that the complaint was totally without foundation, and was only calculated to deceive _ waverers The amendment would, if carried, shelve the whole question ; for when the Council and people of Otago, who had so honorably met them, saw the Council of Southland refuse to deal with it, they would never agree to re-union unless this province went asking for it in a very humble manner. If these resolutions J had been met by fair, candid proposals to discuss side by side with them, he could understand it ; but this was not a fair amendment — all was left in darkness. It was well known there, was not a farthing in the Treasury. He had not before brought out the whole circumstances of the province — (cries of, " Oh, oh!") — not so much of the evils as he might have done. They need not catch at words, but the fact was, they dare not j stop short now — they must decide. Decisive action Vfas imperative, and was there to be a dplay of six or seven months, as was proposed by the amendment ? was neither reason xior fairness in it. Mr Johnston opposed the amendment. The information which had been given to the Otngm Commissioners had been given for the purpose of being laid by them before the Council of Otago. Mr Calder said a memorandum of j Crown lands and statement of liabili- ' ties comprised the whole of the return | given to the Commissioners. Mr Daniel briefly opposed the amendment. Mr M'Gtixlivray also opposed it, on the ground that action had been too long delayed already. To bring such an amendment before the House was a perfect absurdity. Mr Kinross opposed the amendment. He said he thought it unlikely more land would be sold. The reason that j large sales of land had been made was that runholders had been anxious to preserve their runs — to accomplish this they bought to the full extent of their means, and it was cheaper for them to pay twopence per acre rental than two shillings, which would be the interest on £1 purchase money. Bona fide settlers had no , inducement to pui'chase Crown lands. ] they could get improved lands cheaper from persons who were leaving in disgust. The runholders might be doing well, but that was because their market was far away, and the depression did not affect them. The opponents of re- union had not put forward any scheme for carrying on the affairs of the province. In reference to what Mr Lumsden had stated as to the monopoly of trade by the Dunedin merchants, it was a natural result. The larger markets can always undersell the smaller. Mr Steuaht thought that the General Government should be communicated j with to see what other alternative could be offered. Mr Calder said that was agreed to, and acted on already, but they never had an answer. Mr Kinross believed that was correct. i Mr Steuart objected to giving effect to the Commissioners' report in a single night. What did they find in it? Simply terms which one side was to offer and the other wa3 to be prepared to accept. Then when the whole question was prejudged it was determined that no obstacle should be placed in the way of its being carried. As the report stood, it was a special plea for re-union. He admitted that the province was not in a healthy state, but contended that there was more ways than one of effecting a cure. Even when a patient was in the last stas;e of disease, it generally was not suddenly, but gradually, and in various ways, that the cure was to be effected. It was much the same in the present case. There were many other means which might be tried in succession before resorting to the extreme one of re-union. They had heard something of it being discreditable to go to the General Government instead of Otago, but he thought that province was as much

indebted to 'the General Government as us, and he pointed to Marlborough, which was much more depressed than this province, as an example. An application at least to the General Government should be made — they did not know what the answer might be. At all events, they should be allowed time to know what other coarse of action was open to them. The feeling of the people of Ota.jo was something to be considered, and he believed that the present Couacil was decidedly opposed to re-union. After quoting the opinion of a settler in Otago, to the effect that, from his point of view, re-union was not desirable, the hon. member said that, so far as he was concerned, he would prefer to have the question deferred. Mr Bnr,L would support the amendment unless the original motion were amended. He had been returned by a constituency favorable to re-union, but was not prepared to have the matter forced on. He moved the adjournment of the debate till 12 o'clock the following day. Mr Webster seconded. On the question for adjournment of the debate being put, the House divided, with the following result— ayes, Messrs Gillow, Webster, Menzies, Steuart, Bell, Basstian, M'Neill, and Lumsden (S) ; noes, Messis Johnston, Toshack, Calder, Kinross, Lyon, Daniel, M'Gillivray, Macdonald, and Petehell (9.) The Couueil having resumed seats, Mr BEiiL in speaking to Mr Basstiai's amendment, said he was opposed to the resolution brought in by the Government in its present form. If some concessions were made, he might support it, but no conscientious man could allow the question to be disposed of that evening. He moved the adjournment of the debate until 12 o'clock next day. Mr Macdonald seconded, and the motion was put and carried. The Council then adjourned until 12 o'clock the following day.«•> «•>