THE WOMEN'S POLITICAL LEAGUE AND THE FRANCHISE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 214, 7 September 1895, Page 2

THE WOMEN'S POLITICAL LEAGUE AND THE FRANCHISE.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —I observe in the report of the lasb meeting of the Women's Political League that; the following resolutions were carried and ordered to be eenb to other women's leagues throughout the colony:—"That the following persons be debarred from exercising the franchise: (1) All persons over the age of 21 who have Berved a term of imprisonment under sentence of the Supremo Court to be disfranchised for three years. (2) All persons who have been twice convicted in the Courto to be disfranchised for three years. (3) All persons who are being maintained at the expense of the State or in any public benevolent institution." Can you inform me whether the League intend under clause 2 that persons Convicted twice in the Magistrate's Courb of such trivial offences as are provided under the Police Offences Act, Shop Hours Act, City Bylaws and kindred laws — such offences, for example, as driving, round a corner afc other than a walking pace, leaving the chain off a cartwheel, etc.—shall be disfranchised for three years. And whether the words "maintained at the expense of the State " are intended as a comprehensive phrase meant to include all Government employees, civil eervico and military pensioners and others who are now depondanb on the State for their livelihood. If this is really what the Leaßue mean the propositions are too absurd for serious discussion ; if they mean something else, then it appears to me expedient that) to save the League from ridicule, they should, before dispatching such resolutions all over the'colony, remove any midcqncepfcion on the subject by making their intentions moro explicib. I am, etc.," A Friendly Ciuxio, '

[There can be only one meaning attacliod to clause 2; in the absence of any distinction between offences, mauifestly all convictions in the Magistrate's Courts aro to be regarded as equal—it is nob the character of the offence, bub the fact) of two convictions being recorded which is to disfranchise. With regard to clause 3, we cannot, of course, pay what was in the minds of members of the League, bub the sentenco quoted by our correspondent is certainly open to the construction placed upon it by him, and bhie view is emphasised by the distinction which is drawn between those who are " maintained ab the expense of the State" and the inmafcee of public benevolent institutions. Wβ should suppose, however, thab the intention of the League under this clause was to disfranchise only those who aro being maintained by charity, and thab, of course, could nob be applied eibher to Government employees or pensioners, who, albhough " maintained ab the expenee of the State," are giving now, or havo given in the past, an equivalent service, and are simply paid like other workers what they have earned under legal contracts. Bub, even taking the narrower sense, if the League's resolutions were made law, the Registrar of Electors would haveimposed upon him the duty of making BOice nice distinctions. For example, an industrious man meets with an accident and ie sent to the hospital, he and his family becoming for a while dependent upon the State. Under the League's proposals his misfortune would ,be penalised, and himself and those dear to him branded by disfrancbisement. The whole trio of propositions, however interpreted, appear to us "too absurd for serious discussion." The first ia oontrary to an imporfcinb principle of English law and justice. The second only needs to bo stated as our correepondenb hag stated ib to shew ite»absurdity • and the third, which classea misfortune and honest poverty with wilful wrongdoing is utterly repugnant fco ouf sense of juatice and nghteousnees,— Ed. J5.3.J ■■■*■-,