New Zealand Tablet. MR, MACANDREW'S PAMPHLET.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume III, Issue 134, 26 November 1875, Page 10

New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1875. MR. MACANDREW'S PAMPHLET.

Last week we called attention to this brochure, aud promised eitiicr to publishit in our present issue or to criticise it fully. It has seemed to us best to adopt the former course, and accordingly, we, this week, present our friends with a supplement containing the text of the pamphlet without any abridgment whatever. This will bo more satisfactory to our readers than a mere commentary, even though it were accompanied with copious extract's. 'They can now read and judge for themselves; and will not be dependent on our aid for an estimate of His Honor's views. "From the very first our views on the question of separa-

tion bave been decided and unvarying. There was a time when we stood almost alone in advocating such a measure. But now the case is different, and it is a source of great gratification to us to find that our opinions are also theopinions of able and experienced politicans in both Islands. Indeed, it appears that Separation with Federation is the popular cry just now ; and it cannot be doubted that the more the question is considered the more popular it will become. There are, to be sure, some who still cling desperately to the nearly sinking plank of Centralism, but the number of such is becoming gradually less as time advances. These remind us of an army in fulJ retreat, which, with the view of saving its honor, halts occasionally to fire some shots in. the direction of the victorious enemy. So far as we can, judge from all available sources of information, there are now only a few who fight for Centralism in "Wellington ; and the arguments made use of against Separation may be reduced to two. The first, and indeed the only one of any weight at all, arises from a supposed difficulty on the part of the public creditor. The rabid Centralists are very careful of the interests of this all important personage, or at least, wish, to be regarded iv this light. To read their writing or hear them speak, one would be tempted to fancy that, somehow or other, the public creditor was likely to be in danger, in the event of the separation of the two Islands, and the establishment of a Federal government, whose principal business it would be to pay all colonial debts to the last farthing. It is impossible to see how such an arrangement could in any way affect the public creditor, except indeed for the better. At the worst, this personage, after Separation, would be precisely where he is at present. He has now the security of the entire colony for his money, and after Separation he would still have the very same security at least. But the truth is, in the event of this measure as proposed being carried, he would have more and better security than he has now. This additional security wouldnecessarily arise from the increased prosperity, resulting from the peace and harmony that such a measure would confer on the two Islands, and the consequent great developement of the abounding resources of both. The only other argument is a curious illustration of how, sorry logicians make use of the mode of reasoning known as retorqueo argvmenttwn. Provincialists have opposed the Abolition Bill, amongst other reasons, on the ground that it would establish an, injurious Centralism. Abolitionists oppose Separation, they say, because it means Provincial Centralism. But what does this amount to ? Centralism to a certain extent is inevitable ; but the Centralists of this Island, prefer that the Centralism which is inevitable should be in another Island, at a great distance from them, rather than here. We only wonder these gentlemen do not go a step further, and propose to hand over the management of our affairs to, say, A r ictoria. The steamboats that run between New Zealand and Melbourne' make the passage in about three days and a few hours ; more powerful boats oould do it in less time, and in a few months the telegraph wires will place us in almost instantaneous communication ' with Australia. Here is an argument we specially recommend to the attentive consideration of the high-minded politicians ! of this colony, who are so anxious to put an end to local divisions and raise a great English-speaking nation, and who have so incessantly made use of the steamboat and telegraph argument in favor of Abolition. These arguments tell equally well for the absorption of New Zealand by Victoria, and the abolition of the provincial system by our Central Government. Indeed, if anything, the argument is stronger for the former than for the latter. "We cannot close this article without giving an illustration of the way in which this question is treated by our contemporaries. The ' Tuapeka Times' happens to be the first at hand, and from this journal we shall take a passage which will throw a good deal of light upon the amount of information and intelligence possessed by those who advocate abolition. In its issue of the 20th Nov., the 'Times,' in its leader, says: — " We would venture to say that what recommended the Abolition Bill to the favorable consideration of country districts was the permission it contained for localising administration, and the power it gave to county boards and shire councils to look after and superintend 'their own affairs." Well, all that can be said is, that if what our contemporary states is really he fact >

•country districts must have been in a state of the most profound and culpable ignorance. Why the fact is, that the people of Otago have had it in their power to have all this and a great deal more if they had wished. The Provincial Council of Otago years ago enacted a law bestowing on the people a great deal more in the matter of shire • councils, local government and endowment, than the Aboli tion Bill. So much, therefore, for the intelligence and wisdom of the country districts which supported abolition. "We, doubt, however, if these districts will thank the ' Tuapeka Times' for volunteering this information.