MR WHITAKER'S REPLY TO MR McMINN.

Waikato Times, Volume XVII, Issue 1408, 12 July 1881, Page 3

MR WHITAKER'S REPLY TO MR McMINN.

TO THE EDITOB. Sib, — I should not have troubled you with any comment on Mr Whitaker's speech referring to the proposed change in the mode of appointment of the Legislative Council, if the views expressed therein had not been endorsed upon in editorial articles, both in the Waikato Times and Weekly Ncm, thus giving force to them which otherwise they would not have acquired. As, however, Mr Whitaker has thought proper to reply to my letter, allow me to express my gratification at his taking "some interest in my laudable ambition to investigate and become better acquainted with the higher branches of politics," and with him for my Gamaliel, there can be no doubt that my researches will be crowned with success. It is the privilege of great minds to sympathise with those of smaller calibre, and of their superabundance to impart wisdom to those in need, entirely dissenting from the narrowminded view that "where ignorance is bliss, -'tis folly to be wise." Still, after carefully reading Mr Whitaker's letter, I cannot see that he has advanced any argument against the proposed change which would not apply with still greater force to that at present in vogue, and while dealing in vague generalities, takes no notice of the pastand present experience of other governing bodies in the colony. As foi' the suppositions case which Mr Whitaker draws, such a result could not possibly be brought about, because Mr Curtis resolutions on which Mr Hall's proposal is ( based expressly provided, that in such'cases a majority of two thirds of the combined Houses would be required, while I assume Mr Whitaker would prefer the present system of calling a sufficient numbejr of jwiable new members to the Council;'' al *an"4ranuaP'expeitse of two hundred guineas each per annum for life, 'after 'they had'benefited the'^ntry (erf- 4 f drcingithejMeori dual wotejbr • instance) , by enabling reasonable coercion (whatever that may mean), to be exercised over the remainder, For my part, J $$% better.

far for the measure to be delayed a session than for Buch a dangerous and mischievous principle to be engrafted in our constitution. If members of the Legislature require to be coerced into doing their duty, it is surely time there was a change in their constitution. I oftnnot compliment Mr Whitaker upon the closeness of his logic, for though purposing to shew that 1 am not justified in Baying that his sentiments are of h conservative type, I think he has signally failed in doing so. Not to encroach too much on your space by quoting unnecessarily from his letter, let any one read his definition of the paramount principle of a liberal creed with which I thoroughly agree, and then say if Mr Hall's propositions are not more in unison therewith than the present system. In the one case men who have already been elected by the constituencies to the Lower House would be promoted, so to speak, before the eyes of the public, and ia the Legislative Chamber, thus ensuring that they should have afc least some political experience without which their duties as services of the legislation of the Lower House could not be efficiently performed, while in the other the Ministry of the day meet in private and most likely for party reasons determine Who they shall recommend to the Governer for appointment, without any restriction as to how many they may so recommend, though each one entails an anuual expenditure of two hundred guineas for lifo. Any one at all conversant with the appointments which have been made must know that this power has been abused in some cases, both in the number of those made and in the suitability of the appointees. I am surprised that Mr Whitaker should connect Mr Curtis rejection at the last election with his bill for electing the Council. I have always understood that was owing to his Education Bill, though that was based somewhat on the principle which had been in force in Nelson for many years. Mr Whitaker says I fall into a great error in saying "the principle of the two Houses voting together is at present in force, as when a conference takes place on points on which neither will give way" because he says "the decisions arrived at are not binding upon either House until subsequently confirmed by the majority of itsmembers." I am aware these decisions, or mutual concessions rather, are not equally binding upon either House, but morally and practically they certainly are so, and I am not aware of any case in which a decision arrived at by a conference of both Houses (or rather four members from each House) has been rescinded or being afterwards brought up for confirmation. Even suppose such a tiling had happened, I maintain the principle is still admitted, and I know, in the majority of cases, both Houses are only too glad to get rid of troublesome points by having them settled by arbitration, as it were, to think of opening them again. I will not trouble you with further comments, as Mr Whitaker has really given me very little to reply to. The principle I advocate fs ' ' Election v. Nomination, " and while favouring that proposed by Mr Hall I am quite open to conviction that some other mode may be better, but I am decidedly of opinion that proposed is better for the reasons I have stated previously than any in force in the other colonies. —l am &c, Edward G. McMinn. Harapepe, Bth July, 1881.