AN ADDISON'S FLAT VIEW OF SEPARATION.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 479, 18 March 1869, Page 3

AN ADDISON'S FLAT VIEW OF SEPARATION.

(JBOM OUR OWN COERESFOJTDENT.) 1 observe that the work of Separation moves apace. It has assumed a tangible form, and so I suppose a reilex of the opinion entertained by the miners on this subject will be appropriate here. I cannot say there is much earnestness manifested for or against the movement, but I think the general feeling is in favor of Separation. "We reason thus, that if the administrative powers are vested in the residents of the immediate district, we shall have the mining interests fostered, andjfacilities more abundantly afforded to prospect the country. Our welfare is bo closely allied with that of your citizens, that it is a matter of paramount importance for them to use their utmost endeavours m securing a settled population. This a not generally the case among a "matting community. Mr Moorhouse in a speech made at Hokitika truly "kened the digger to the pioneers of Old America, who with indomitable fnergy and courage] penetrated tho interior wilds, and, looking back, beckoned on the slow and hesitating •wps of agriculture and cirilisatron,

but instead of the deserved eulogium Mr Moorhouse was pleased to pass upon us, we have often been led to believe that the squatters in the land entertain a tall suspicion that we are little better than vagabonds. It is strange that in the history of almost every gold-producing country, the landed and mining interests have been at variance. Instead of the close alliance necessary to their mutual welfare, we have seen the bitterest animosity prevailing. Instance, the never ceasing endeavours of the Victorian squatters to over-burden the miner with excessive taxation, a taxation so extortionate that in the early days of the mining iudustry it raised the people in stern rebellion. In Otago we have seen the same animosity prevailing. The " Old Identity," in his peevish discontent at seeing the mining element so full of active life and bustle, and thereby so liable to assume the reins, endeavored to disseminate the absurd doctrine that the diggings would ruin the country. But in the two cases I have cited, Separation was an impossibility. The two interests throughout the land were so closely intermixed that a severance was impossible, but here we have a material difference. The agricultural and pastoral are separated, and entirely distinct, from the mining interests. The prospect augurs well for the ultimate success of the present agitation, and if the Separationists are found in the majority, the right of self-government must sooner or later be accorded. My interpretation of a leading principle in representative institutions is, that where the majority is, there shall the powers be gathered together.