OUR SYDNEY LETTER.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 343, 27 August 1889, Page 2

OUR SYDNEY LETTER.

[ybom oua oww cobbebfosdixt.) Political interest centred npon the misunderstanding, between the -Assembly *" d * he Council and the unseemly action of. the Premier in connection with it. It looks very much as if thejgenileman atlthe head - of the Government wishes to provoke s life-and-death struggle between the two branches of the Legislature at a time when the circumstances of the colony imperatively demand peace and quietness and good administration. T'ThelCouncil havs conceded more than ever they dli before. They have passed the measure, and If their amendments had been accepted, the member, of the next Assembly would have received payment in due course. But payment to the next Assembly, although it grants the principle whioh’lhas so long been a bone of contention between the two Houses, would not suit the impecunious Johnny Warders who don't ears a cent about the principle, but who want the money, and who want it now. A great) dealjof frothy nonsense la talked about the sacred right of the Assembly to initiate and amend money bills. But to a great many people this measure as framed by the Assembly is not so much a bill to provide money for the public service as a bill to enable them to put their own hands in the Treasury. If the constitution contains no provision against spoliation of this kind, then the sooner an effective safeguard is devised, the better. However, Sir Henry Parkes, who very soon tire, of the real labors of Government, fancies he sees his acoount in putting himself at the head of the disaffected detachment, and he has been joined by a number of men who ought to know better. Mr Ewing, for instance, asks in a letter addressed to the newspapers How many imes does our nominee Chamber desire us to send up this four-tlmes raj.cted bill ?" In this brief sentence there are two misstatements, either of which is sufficient to vitiate the conclusion at which Mr wishes hia readers to arrive. In the place th- Council, sorely against Its tions and traditions, has passed ths measure. Although previously it had rejected It, it has now passed it. That is misstatement number one. Secondly the measure, as sent up by the Assembly, differed from its predecessors by containing the principle of selfpayment, which no other Assembly had tbs shameless impudence to insist upon. Tbs amendments made by the Council do not reject provisions which htve been rejected before, They reject a provision now presented to them for the first time —a very dangerous provision, and one which every candid and conscientious man would view with great misgivings. The position of Sir Henry Parke, ia peculiarly undignified. Unmindful of the peou* liar circumstances of the colony, he plunges into strife, apparently without the slightest thought of the national interest, that are threatened in such a course of action. And he threatens to wipe the Council out of existence for doing much less than he himself and seven of his colleagues have dons. If the Assembly is not to tolerate the existence ot the Council because it has ventured to amend the payment of Members Bill by striking out a very dangerous and objectionable proviso, how much leas ought ths Assembly to tolerate the existence of a Government, which, both by voice and vote, opposed the measure altogether! Hava not the Council as good a right to their convictions as the Premier ? Of course, it is useless to argue with angry men who believe they hold the power to avenge themselves. Bat the longer this question is discussed the more plainly will it be seen that the Assembly has chosen a most disadvantageous battle ground. Not only is the Assembly, as a whole, fond of assarting privileges which it does not possess. At least one of its sub-commi .teel appears to have been guilty of the asms error. The Committee of Election and Qualifications recently had before it ths election of Mr Schey, for Redfern, which was petitioned against on the ground that voting and other illegal practices resorted to. The Act of Parli authorises the proceedings of the expressly states that evidence is t in open court, although the the power of clearing the court in order deliberate. In this case both the leading • morning papers sent reporters to the committee room. But they were refused admission on the ground that the committee preferred to conduct the enquiry in private, The whole of the subsequent proceedings were clearly illegal. But in all probability the Assembly will endeavor to take as short order with the press as it proposes to with the Council, It should, however, be mentioned that there are some bright exceptions. Mr Oopeland with sterling good sense and rugged honesty maintains that the Assembly has no right to vote the people's money into its own pockets, and that if it does so the seats of all its members will become vacant because they will have accepted offices of profit under tbs Crown. There can be no doubt that Mr Copeland’s contention is morally right, whatever may be its merits from a technical point of view. Mr Reid also is vebemenently opposed to the idea of provoking a struggle on suoh a sordid pretext. He pointed out that the Assembly had over and over again conceded the Council's amendments to money bills, and that there was no justification for taking this desperate stand simply because the money was to be handled by themselves. Mr Lyns is opposed to the idea ot member, voting themselves back pay, and these gentlemen ate supported by many others who see clearly that the attidude in which the Assembly aud. Government are posing before country is di.« creditable in the extreme. Mr W, H. Sutter, a conscientious and honorable man, and the vice-president of the Council, has resigned his position in the Government rather than countenance ths course which they havs a adopted.