THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE.

It may be asked-supposing it to be held, as
already suggested, that it is objectionable to allow a
Superintendent to obtain a dissolution without the
concurrence of the Provincial Council-Whether such
a rule is not necessarily modified in the case of a
system of Executive Government such as has been
adopted in Otago, and which does not appear to
have been contemplated by the Constitution Act
under which Provincial Governments were created?
If, as is really the case in Otago, the Superintendent
deems himself bound to carry on the business of
the Province with the advice and consent of his
Executive-and if the Superintendent is unable to
work with an Executive which commands the confi-
dence of the Council-the result must be a dead-lock,
out of which there can be no escape except through a
dissolution.
or even advising the Superintendent. The Government
are unable to see that His Honor acted otherwise
than with moderation. It is to be remembered that
the Constitution Act intended that the Superintend-
ent should possess the full powers of a constituent
part of the Provincial Legislature. The acceptance
of Executive advice-in other words, the submission
to the advice of one branch of the Provincial Govern-
ment-is a great concession on the part of a Superin-
tendent. A constitutional Monarch or Governor
is not bound to act upon advice with which he dis-
agrees, or to accept advisers with whom he cannot
work in harmony; but constitutional Monarchs or
Governors, with rare exceptions, are ready to be
guided by the advice of their Executive, as they do
not possess, as a rule, strong opinions upon the
points about which advice is tendered. Superin-
tendents, on the other hand, are elected rulers in most
cases because of the opinions they express, and
they clearly owe obligations and duties to those who
elect them as well as to their advisers. It may be
held, therefore, that a Superintendent, in respect to
the choice of his Executive, and his acquiescence
in their advice, possesses at the least as much
discretion as other constitutional rulers. But no
constitutional ruler would submit to the head
of his Executive accepting the post of Executive
Adviser in another Government, without consult-
ing or even informing him. In short, Mr. Reid
did not exhibit to the Superintendent the courtesy
which the latter had a right to expect. Mr.
Reid's first letter in reply to His Honor was satirical,
and disrespectful in tone, and was itself a proof that,
in his new position, he ceased to pay to his chief
the respect which he owed to him. In a sub-
sequent letter, after Mr. Reid retired from Colonial
office, his tone was much more respectful, and
he justified his acceptance of office on the ground
that a deputy was performing his duties in Dun-
edin. This plea is no doubt entitled to con-
sideration; but the Government, after giving it
full weight, have come to the conclusion that Mr.
Reid's deputy was only performing such duties as
required to be discharged on the spot, in the same
way as when a Minister temporarily leaves the seat
of Government, some other Minister during his
absence signs papers for him. But Mr. Reid could
not depute his position as head of the Executive to
any one. He continued to hold that position,
although temporarily absent from the Province.
Having dismissed Mr. Reid, the Superintendent
would not have stretched his powers in declining
to accept him again, as his adviser, until after a
general election; but with great moderation he invited
Mr. Reid to resume his position immediately after
he ceased to hold office in the Colonial Govern-
ment.

On the whole, it is not very material whether
or not the Superintendent was justified in refusing
to accept the Executive named by Mr. Reid. It is
quite clear that had he accepted the Executive, and
found that he could not work with its members, he
would have been acting within his power in requiring
their resignation.

The Government have given to the memorial of
a number of the members of the Provincial Council
to His Excellency the Governor, the considera-
tion to which the care with which it is drawn up,
and its importance, entitle it. The statements con-
tained in sections 2 to 8 inclusive, appear to be
furnished as grounds of complaint against His
Honor the Superintendent. Indeed, the whole
memorial is substantially an expression of con-
demnation of the conduct of the Superintendent.
It does not seem to have occurred to the memo-
rialists that, supposing the Government subscribed
to the opinions expressed in censure of His Honor's
conduct, the obvious course open to the Govern-
ment would be the very one to which the memo-
rialists are opposed-namely, to leave to the people
of the Province the opportunity of selecting, if
they desire it, a fresh Superintendent, and as the
law in that case compels, and as justice would dictate,
a new Provincial Council. Supposing, to give an
analogous instance, a number of members of the
House of Representatives complained to the Secretary
of State of the conduct of the Officer Administering
the Government of the Colony, the Secretary of
State could not more completely meet the wishes of
the complainants, together with the allegation of the
Governor complained of that the memorialists did
not represent the feelings of the country, than by
providing a new Governor, and decreeing a fresh
election. This the Colonial Government would do
as far as they have the power, by advising a dissolu-
tion. The appointment of the Superintendent does
not rest with the Governor; all that he can do is
to give to those who have the appointment, the
opportunity, if they wish it, of making a change
It indeed seems singular that the memorialists, com-
plaining, as they do, of such large constitutional
evils, do not see in an appeal to the people a natural
and constitutional redress of sufficient importance
to outweigh the temporary inconvenience it may
occasion.

As it has been pointed out that a dissolution might
be fairly asked and granted in consequence of mis-
conduct on the part of the Superintendent, it is
necessary to express an opinion on the principal
points raised by the memorialists, otherwise it might
appear that the Government consider their com-
plaints valid.

The memorialists lay great stress upon the Super-
intendent's dismissal of the gentleman at the head of
his Executive, in consequence of his having taken
fice in the Colonial Government without consulting
The memorialists complain that the Superintendent,
by Mr. Reid's dismissal, acquired the power to call
to his counsels an Executive not possessing the con-
fidence of the Council, and they argue from it a subver-
sion of constitutional Government. They do not seem
to see that what they complain of would, under
similar circumstances, be incidental to any consti-
tutional Government. The legislative body leaves
in office an Executive in which it has confidence. If
anything make it necessary that the Premier should
retire, it should be his duty previously to endeavour
to persuade his chief to give to some one whom he
believes will command the confidence of the Legisla-
ture the power of forming a Ministry. But if, without
even informing his chief, he accepts another appoint-
ment, it is he, and not that chief, who is responsible
should an Executive obtain office not possessing the
confidence of the Legislature. Throughout the corre-
spondence, the Superintendent appears not unnaturally