The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published Every Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday Morning. Saturday, July 6, 1889. HOME RULE FOR THE COAST.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 321, 6 July 1889, Page 2

The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published Every Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday Morning.

Saturday, July 6, 1889. HOME RULE FOR THE COAST.

• Be just and fear not; Let all the ends thou aim’st at be thy country’s, Thy God's, and truth’s.

We have not yet heard anything from Wellington in regard to the Bill to be presented to Parliament to have a certain portion of the Coast district separated from Cook County, and we have heard very little from the Coast, beyond an occasional murmur that separation is being sought for and vague whisperings of the wrongs that have been endured, Perhaps the silence may betaken as an indication that there is a complete unanimity upon the subject and an absence of any opposition. Or is it not more correct to say that the reticence maintained is due simply to the “ don’t-care" spirit that is one of the great drawbacks of the place ? People let things slip by, take no heed of the consequences until the mischief (if any) has b*een done, and then, when it is past remedy, or gone so far as only to create confusion if a retrograde step is attempted, is the spirit of opposition aroused, and then can be plainly seen what those who array themselves in opposition were in the first instance too careless to trouble themselves about.

This question of altering the constitution of the County is one which ought to provoke a great amount of discussion, unless, indeed, all the ratepayers interested have only one opinion on the subject. For our part wa think it is a pity to make divisions where they can be avoided, and we hold that there are far too many governing bodies to discharge the small amount of work. But we are equally opposed to that principle of Centralism the tendency of which is to neglect the more remote districts, whether it be from want of proper supervision or with the direct purpose of increasing the advantages of the central districts. It is a very wrong argument for the Coast ratepayers to take up—perhaps we should be more correct to term it an imputation—that that portion of the district has been a milch cow for the remainder. That is, even assuming it to be true, an absurd attitude to take up, and has really no bearing on the main question. Are the Coast people convinced that by a separation they will be able to constitute a local government that will give them more satisfaction than the present system ? If they are, and we believe there is no doubt about it,

then we say they are justly entitled to what they ask. The one great objection we acknowledge is that settlers with smaller holdings will be to a great extent in the hands of the large holders, but their interests are so much in agreement that they are not likely to clash until the present state of things has greatly altered. Though we should like to see the matter freely discussed, we certainly feel it our duty to side with the Coast settlers in the stand which the}’ have taken up on this matter, and if they succeed we see no reason why it should in any way interrupt the harmonious relations existing in all parts of the district.