The New York herald., 1879-10-10
DOMINION RULE.
MENT's DECISION IN THE LETELLIER AZ
FAIR.

OPINION IN TORONTO ON THE, HOME GOVERN
MENT's DECISION IN THE LErHLLIER Az
FAIR.
TORONTO. Ont, Oct. 9. 1879.
special cable despatch from London to the
Globe says the Colonial Sccretarys despatch to the
Marquis Of Loyne, the Letellier affair, is pub
lshcd in full there.
The Times in its editorial columns. says:-"The
despatch will not strengthen the hands Of the
Colonial Governors. 1t must subject their action
more and to the direction Of their ministerial
advisers for the time being. This is consequence
much to be regretted. What must be must be. But
IL tho dominant democracy of the hour is entitled
TO use the Colonial government the instrument
of its will may feel disposed to question the
OF Colonial Governor. Our spec cuations go
further. Yet the result is as unpalatable
it Is strange. The Governor In every colony
is looked upon as something more than
passive exponent Of the views OF his Parliamentary
Ministers, he Is accepted the delegate OF tho
ereign; as the confidential emissary OF the homo
government. to which, well to colonial
government. he owes responsibility. 1t has been
supposed that he ought to Withstand the latter ii he
believed their advice ut variance with the prn
ciples of the constitution of the colony would
negatived by the Minister at home. Resistance on
tho part OF Colonial Governor to the proposals OF
his responsible advisers is. without doubt. matter
of great decacy, not to be undertaken rashly, yet
tion must be raised. The despatch counsels obedi-
without calling attention to the conditions
which obedience depends. The moral the Colonial
Governors will draw from the despatch is that Of
conditional obedience, while hundreds of signs
warn us OF the necessity of directing the attention
of the Governors to the time at which and circum-
under which they should resist the counsels
Of their ordinary advisors"
Tho Times believes Lord Lornes interpretation of
the act to be correct. and says:-"The question is
whether the home government is prepared to con-
test the point with the Dominion administration.
II they not prepared perhaps submission is dis
Greet and safe. Tho Colonial Governor is also the
guardian Of parliamentary principles. In this capa-
city his duty s to convince himself in every case of
doubt or importance whether the advice OF his
ministers would be supported by the judgment Of
the Colonial electorate 1t is not enough for minis
ters who tender advice to possess the confidence OF
majority OF the popular chamber. II their ad-
vice raises question of constitutional gravity Of the
hrst Importance the colonial government is bound
to consider whether the mind of the people has con-
sdered it and is prepared to approve OF tho conduct
of the Ministry. Upon these principles Colonial
Governors have again and again declined to follow
their Ministers advice. accepted their designations
when they persisted called their opponents into the
council and tested the electors upon the issues
raised 1t is most important that this power,
spending to the duty of tho Colonial Governors.
q partial safeguard against dangers OF hasty
resolutions Whether 1t would have been
well for Lord Lorne have acted in this in
the present is sssri'y open to dispute; but
what Ia not open to dispute Is, that Sir Michael
Hicks Beach should have remembered this safeguard
before advancing unconditional submission to usur
patton OF power. He should have suggested to Lord
Lorno prudent inquiry as to whether the people
were prepared to sustain Sir John A. Macdonald in
his demand There is reason to believe that Sir
John himself would have been rather glad ut this
TELLER. There was no popular force at its back; it
had not been considered ut the general election.
Some months were allowed to elapse before-at the
instigation OF Quebec supporters greedy for office
to have been considered by the Colonial Secre-
tary whom he ordered capituaton."