The Globe. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1876.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 752, 16 November 1876, Page 2

The Globe. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1876.

We notice with satisfaction the tone adopted by our contemporary the Lyttelton Times in its article of this morning on the Otago Convention. After the flourish of trumpets and braggadocio of the Otago adherents to the cause of Provincialism, it is quite refreshing to find so staunch a supporter as the Times speaking somewhat like the truth regarding that remarkable gathering. But while we say this there is, however, an argument we cannot go with. Our contemporary is averse to the Superintendents of Provinces acting under the General Government, as agents, in order to wind up the affairs of the provinces. The reasons given for its aversion amount to nothing. It may be that our contemporary has such a holy horror of anything pertaining to abolition, that it is afraid the High Priests of its idol, Provincialism, may in some way become infected with the disease. Beyond an aversion which is very natural, the Lyttelton Times does not advance one reason why the Superintendents should not complete the business that remains to be done ere the obsequies of Provincialism may be said to have been fairly concluded. The remark about French prefets is quite beside the question. There is not the slightest analogy between the position of Mr Eolleston as General Government agent and the officer alluded to by our contemporary. Now, on the other side, the arguments in favor of the course pursued by Mr Bolleston and some other ex-Buperin-tendents, are weighty and self-evident. Intimately connected as the Superintendent, from the nature of his office has been with all departmental matters —many of them demanding special knowledge to deal with them—where would it be possible to find an officer so fitted in the interests of the public to wind up the matters of business which remain ? It seems to us that there could be no fitter person; even supposing some other officer was appointed the references to the late Superintendent would be so numerous that practically he would have as much to do with what the Times calls the “ happy despatch ” as if he were in office as agent of the Government, The great difference, however, would be that the public under the former state of things would lose the full benefit of his experience and knowledge. There can be no sort of implication of inconsistency urged against Mr. Bolleston for having done so. No one has fought more steadily against abolition than he has done. But he stated most distinctly that if the voice of the people’s representatives were in favor of it he would bow to their decision and loyally aid to carry out the new order of things Our contemporary seems to be unable to appreciate or even understand such a feeling as this. It is fortunate, however, for the general interest that some of our public men are able to take a broader and more liberal view of affairs than our contemporary, whose ideas seem to be confined in a very narrow groove. The former have accepted the position, and sinking their personal opinions, have given their assistance towards making the new scheme as efficient in its working as possible. To have taken any other course would be to directly oppose the best interests of the public at large. We think therefore that so far from reproof, the Superintendents accepting the positions in the various districts are entitled to commendation. Our contemporary in his article has gone so far on the right road that we do not yet despair to seeing him ledge in the words of his concluding sentence, that in the tactics of the Opposition “ we foresee nothing but “ needless agitation, waste of power, “ wearisome delay, and ultimate “ failure.”