New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1876. WHAT SHALL WE CALL IT?

New Zealand Tablet, Volume IV, Issue 182, 22 September 1876, Page 10

New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1876. WHAT SHALL WE CALL IT?

Is it an address, a memorial, a threat, a sham, a scheme, or an absurdity ; we mean the document lately forwarded to the members for Dunedin in the House of Representatives ? We are not in a position to answer this question, as we have not been behind the scenes ; but there is one thing in reference to this document which we do Know. It is unjust, ungrateful, and in exceedingly bad taste. There can be no doubt, whatever, that it implies grave censure of the parliamentary conduct of Mr. Macandrew, Mr. Stotjt, and Mr. Larnach. This is unjust and undeserved so far, at all events, as the present session of Parliament is concerned. These three gentlemen have, during this session, labored zealously and wisely to protect the rights, liberties, and material interests of Otago ; and their conduct in tbe House has been such as should command the approbation and. thanks of every citizen of Dunedin, and every lover of honesty and fair play. This document insinuates that the obstruction of public business must be laid at the door of these three gentlemen and the party to which they belong. Where is the proof of their having done this ? Few have spoken less in the House of Eepresentatives than Mr. Macandbew and Mr. IiAKNAcn; and as to Mr. Stout, not one of his able

speeches has been unnecessary. But the truth is, their crime has been, that they have manfully, patriotically, and laboriously, in the midst of weariness and disgust at stupidity, avarice, and attempted tyranny, fought the battle of justice and independence on behalf of their constituents. Notwithstanding the almost unanimous opinion of the people of Otago, there are to be found here a few persons whose greatest anxiety is to destroy the independence of their province, and hand her over bound hand and foot to a party whose honesty is exemplified by its determinatioi^fl to rob her of her land revenue, and whose ability to coift.^ duct the affairs of the country is evidenced by an inability to construct a legal Executive, and an extreme ardour in the passing of Indemnity Bills when caught in the perpetration of great political misdeeds. The gentlemen of this Centralistic party are the real delinquents, and it is to this party that the wire-pullers who got up the Address to Messrs. Macandrew, Larnach: and Stout belong. Why did they not address their friends, Messrs. Atkinson, Whittakeb, M'Lean, etc., who are to blame for all the delay and other evils resulting from the present session ? What business had they to send such a document to our city members ? These gentlemen have not been guilty of incurring penalties by the purchase of the Piako Swamp, they have' not sat in Parliament whilst holding their places as civil servants, they have not broken recent acts of Parliament by becoming members of an illegal cabinet, they have not introduced Indemnity Acts to screen themselves from penalties, consequent on repeated infringments of the law which they were bouud to know and enforce, they have not been guilty of the political infamy of endeavoring to mulct in costs, by an Indemnity Bill, gentlemen who only sought to do what the law had authorised them to do. There is not on record conduct comparable to that of the present Ministry and iheir subservient majority in Parliament. Having broken the law, the Ministry like men ought to have taken the consequences. But instead of that they have, by the aid of their majority, punished the men who thought to make them obey a most just and necessary law of the land. The obstruction to which certain gentlemen in Dunedin seem to object so much, arose from a desire on the part of some members of the House of Representatives, to test the point in dispute before the proper tribunal, the Supreme Court, and to prevent the stifling of all legal inquiry by a premature and unconstitutional Act of Indemnity. The Ministry by their bungling and high-handed proceedings, by their ha3te in endeavoring to save self, have been the cause of all the late deplorable proceedings in Parliament. It was to the Ministry their friends in Dunedin should have written, and not to Messrs. Macandrew, Stout and Larnach, and we are more than pleased to find that these gentlemen have so promptly rebuked this uncalled for, unjust and non-pertinent manifesto of certain Dunedin citizens. Our remarks are not applicable to more than a few, for we are thoroughly convinced that the vast majority of those gentlemen who attached their names to this document did so inadvertently, and through a misapprehension of its drift.