THE CIVIL SERVANTS AND THE FRANCHISE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXI, Issue 262, 5 November 1890, Page 5

THE CIVIL SERVANTS AND THE FRANCHISE.

f (To tb« Editor,) /^\ Wntfly allew »4,*» muffl space io reply to Mr Bwiogteju % asfe thia favour for We re'ftaons, Jsb, MrJB. has foltag »o#t lanijeniftbly ia provini the Jwues be was ehaließgei ym$ t >$$, He has either nofc pasned op

. , letter. When those few lines were penned, which have called forth Mr E.s effueions,_ 1} had nob the remotest thought of engaging in| a controversy with so redoubtable an op«i ponent and eloquent quill-driver as Mr E.l Neither have 1 now, or the desire either, j In reference to Mr E.s desire to debate: these matters, allow me to suggesbj to him that in order for hinui to do so in a useful and instructive way hei would have to confine himself more strictly! bo accuracy of abatement and fact, and nob* wild, extravagant and uncharitable de«) clamation. :

First, then, Mr Ei's reply is mosb vague; and unsatisfactory. I asked for definite in-j formation. My request to Mr E. was that; he would produce positive proof of the: truthfulness of his assertion, that bhe vob-j ing or elective power of the country wasj in the .hands of tho Civil servants. Has H9j done so ? No, he has not made the slightest: attempt The reasons are obvious. He; has absolutely ignored the chief point in! dispube, and has ingeniously confined himself chiefly to a sorb of special plea for the' expediency of disfranchising bhe Civil] servants, because, forsooth, some nofcabili-j ties imagine thab ib is necessary.

Now, sir, so far as can be sesn, the possi-| bility of such a thing occurring as the, Civil servants bo have the elective power of I ! the country in their own hands, is n6b even' |in the mosb distant future; until such: danger menaces us, if danger it can ba' called, ib will be ample bime to consider the expediency of their disfranchisement.; Whab are the actual facts concerning! the voting power of the colony _ We have,; I suppose, roughly speaking some matythousand electors all told, a few thousandi more if anything. Now, taking Mr Ewing-j ton's figures as correct, twelve thousand! oub of thab number represent bhe Civil: servants, leaving a fine majoriby of soma! seven ty-eigbb thousand outside the rank ofj the Civil servants absolutely. Does ib! nob seem bhe very quintessence ofj folly and rubbish to talk aboub the; Civil servants having bhe power to! turn the scales ab the election ? Mosb] assuredly. Mr Ewington perhaps very* truly staoea thab "the power of the Civil* Service ab Wellington in a general elecbioni is notorious." This may be brue. Wellington being the scab of Governmenb, ib: necessarily follows that a large number of! the Civil" servants Will reside there, thej great majority; therefore, in thab city; they may bo able to control one or two; constituencies, bub in all bhe other consti-j tnencies in the colony their power will bap nil. i Second. MrEwington'aepecialplea forth* expediency of his proposal forms really! the great bulk of his letter. Ib require 9] very little notice. Now, because the en-j forcement of a measure may appear to] some persons' minds expedient and neces-J sary, it certainly does nob p.ove that par-j ticular proposal to be either just orj morally right. Their judgmehb may baj warped, or they may have some selfish] and sinister mobive in its advocacy.! Some good, wise, and mtelligenb personsimagine thab it would be exbremely unwise! and injudicious to granb the franchise toj female.. Mr E. and a host of others, my-; self included, think otherwise. Thus, wej see thab it simply resolves itself into a] matter of opinion. Whose opinion is the, best? So in regard to the disfranchise-; $ienb of bhe Civil Servants being necessary! lor the welfare of the colony ab the present; junctureof affairs. Personally, I have nob the; slightesb doubt bhat if Mr E's unjusb pro-; posal were submitted to the- voice of the' country, the electors en masse would decide! with no uncertain sound that it was unjust,] unnecessary, and a positive . violation of: the greab principles upon which ouy; democracy is founded. -:. Third. I would ask Mr E. if he disfran«i chised the Civil servants would he also reliever bhem 01-the burden of taxation? If nob, why! nob ? Ib would appear very unfair for a! man to have to pay towards the expense of j the country, and yeb have no voice iv bbc way thab money had to be spent. If you deprive him of the privilege and responsi-l bility of all political rights, mosb certainly! relieve him of the burden of taxation.. ;

Fourth. The concluding portion of MrE.'» letter is a tissue of misrepresentations, andj if ib were nob for such a flagrant and grave distortion of bhe truth, one would feel in-; clined to smile ab the wrebched, puerile ab-j tor-apt ab sarcasm. I musb express my astonishment thab a gentleman occupying! the position thab Mr E. does should adopt)] such a mebhod of forcing home an argu-j menb. Let me deny the soft impeachment!: that I have winked ab and baken parb iaj the robbery of bhe franchise from women.j If Mr E. is able bo read intelligently, he cannob possibly draw'such a conclusionfrom my letter, bub just the opposite. I; stated as plain as words and printers' ink! could pub ib, that I fully endorsed Mr E.s! contention that the franchise should be, granted to females, and I based my position; upon the fact thab they (the females) with; us (the males) were units in the body politic, and had equal rights and wants i that sex, as well as social distinction, shouldbe obliterated. Therefore, I advocate ass vigorously and as zealously as Mr; E., though perhaps nob quibe SO; ostentatiously, the granting of ther franchise to females, which I consider i&their. great birthright as well as ours, the males. Ifj Mr E. has any honesty and candour in hia] nature, he will acknowledge his mosb inex-j cusable blunder. I would like so see every man and woman; in the colony with a six months' residential; qualifications, in full possession of bhe fran-j chise, Civil servanbs included; and that] right made an inalienable and sacred one.; The line only to be .drawn ab lunatics,j criminals, and paupers. . ' In conclusion, leb me poinb out one greab characteristic of Mr E.s nature, laid bare before us in his letter and his speech, that 1 characteristic being fallibility. Mr E. makes some glaring mistakes. Ib is to be! hoped that he will remember that ii is! never too lato to mend, and thab he will discard ail his uncharitable and unjust proposals re his fellow citizens and electors. I would humbly remind him also that my' quotabion re charity was nob a Scripburalj one, bub one from W. Shakspere.-—I a_n,> etc., i,,- r Edes E__ECTb_-_ , •