The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, and Echo. MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1897. THE MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVIII, Issue 247, 25 October 1897, Page 4

The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, and Echo.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1897. THE MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE.

F.r tho causa that lacks assistance, ?':v tha -wrong that needs reßi_t_,ac3, .For the futin*. in tho distaace,And tho coed that *wo can do.

'The discussions in Parliament do not Invariably reflect the opinions of the people at large so faithfully as they might be expected to do in a coun-

try where every adult inhabitant, mule and female, may exercise a vote at the general elections; but on many occasions they do, and the debate on Mr Tanners Bill for the extension of the municipal franchise was one of these. • The House took very much the same views of the principle embodied in the measure as are held throughout the country. On the one hand Mr Tanner, with a section of

the members, contended for placing the municipal franchise on the same

broad basis as the political franchise as the Bill provides, and on the other

hand many members were strongly

opposed to n on-ratepayers exercising the same voice in the municipal go-

vernment as property-holders

But the most noticeable feature of the discussion was not the character of the arguments brought forward by the opposite parties, but the moderate spirit in which, considering the bearings of the question, the proposals of the Bill were advocated and criticised, and the apparent willingness of the members that the matter might be deferred until it crops up again, as it is sure to do, when the large question of local government comes to be dealt with. This attitude of the House correctly expresses the feeling of the country with regard to the main provision of Mr Tanner's Bill. Xo one can say that the measure was called for by any serious dissatisfaction with the present position of the municipal franchise; it owes its existence at this time and in;this country rather to a desire to extend the principle of democratic government more fully into municipal affairs than to any flagrant abuses under the existing system. Many will urge that that desire scarcely constitutes of itself a sufficient ground in this case for pressing on the proposed change, but as principle almost qtiite as much as necessity is coming to be a factor in modern legislation, there is little doubt that Parliament will in the near future have to consider this question of the extension of the municipal franchise.

If we understand Mr Tanner's position aright, he holds that the application of the principle of universal adult suffrage is as just and logical in the case of the conduct of municipal affairs as it is in the case of the control of nationalafiairs. Further he urges that the present system is unsatisfactory, and places the control of a Stairs in the hands of a clique: which evils he is sanguine his proposals would cure.

As regards the analogy between municipal and national affairs in this connection, it is certain to be called in question. While it is freely admitted that the government of the country should be in the hands of th." people as a body, there will be many objections to the proposal that the government of each city should similarly be controlled by its entire resident population for the time being. There is reason, we are told, in the one case which there is not in the other. Generally speaking, the responsibilities of all the inhabitants of the' country are alike, and their contribution of money or energy to the maintenance of the State does not permit of discrimination in the distribution of the privilege of the franchise. But in the case of a city there is a marked difference between the contributions and responsibilities of the property-holding class and the property--less class; and that difference should carry with it some distinction in the powers which each is allowed to exercise.

Putting aside the consideration of the justness or unjustness involved in the extension of tne municipal franchise, which might be argued from a dozen different points of view without any conclusion being arrived at that would satisfy everybody, let us look at the broad results which are to be hoped or feared from putting the principle in practice. The opponents of Mr Tanner's measure declare with Captain Russell that the new system 'would expose borougvhs to clamours for extravagant expenditure on local works,' and would give the power into the hands of 'a nominal nomadic popu^ lation with-no real interest in a district.' They believe that if the man without property had as big a voice in the management of a city's affairs as the man with property, the class to which the former belongs would, in the event of its being the larger of the two, as might often happen, have a preponderating influence, and «might exercise it disastrously. Such , a class cannot be expected to have the same incentive to economy as the ratepayers have, and would be indifferent whether the affairs of the city were dearly or cheaply administered. Indeed, the fear is that the non-ratepayers would rather favour extravagance, since it

i would mean more money into their pockets. It is worthy of notice that i in the days when the Roman, Empire Uwas hastening to its downfall the ' management of municipal affairs was ! marked by unbridled lavishness. This, lit has been explained, was largely i due to the fact that the governing ! classes did not have to pay the taxes. \ and the property-owners were poweri less to protect themselves. Similar •j results have followed the adoption of i universal municipal franchise in ! American cities, where the city I governments are as a rule extravaI gant and corrupt and the streets wretchedly kept. Against this hostile view of the results likely to arise from an extension of the municipal franchise we have to set the opinion of several authorities and our own experience in the matter of the national franchise. Mrs J. R. Green, the wife of the historian, in her book on 'Town Life in the Fifteenth Century,' after showing how the Crown destroyed t the municipal independence once enjoyed by the British says:—'lt may Ibe that as the working' class in its ! turn rises to take its place alongside I predecessors on the stage of public j affairs the towns will again become the centres of interest in the national j story as the workshops of an enlarged I • ■ * ° political science.' Mr John Hunt, in his recent volume on 'London Local Government,' tells tis that the vast improvement in the government of the metropolis is tbe result of the broadening of the electorate. If this has beon the experience of London what I reason, it may be asked, is there for j presuming that the effects would not |be the same in colonial cities'? Are !we to suppose that the propertyless ! classes in the colonies, where the standard of education is*, higher, are less to be trusted than the property--less class at home?

And this brings us to the crux of the question which, when put in that way, is not altogether a very pleasant one to answer. Speaking generally, we have not the slightest hesitation in answering it in the affirmative, but

in doing so we are conscious of a mental reservation. In the' matter of the expenditure of public money we think that both the property-holders and non-property-holders in these colonies are much less to be relied on for economy than the people of the Old Country. Our habits of life, the history of our public policy, have unfortunately not tended to make us so economical as we'should be even with our own purses ; and when it comes to the spending ot money which *fc*e have not contributed our consciences are singularly obtuse. Mr Tanner did not directly admit that there was any danger from this source, but he admitted it indirectly and conceded the very point which the opponent* of his measure argue when he inserted the clause in the Bill reserving for the ratepayers the right to cast their votes in the case of a proposed loan. There is undoubtedly a dang*er in that direction, and a second danger is that under the new system the municipality might come under the control of cliques more irresponsible and more extravagant than those by which Mr Tanner, with insufficient reason

we tli ink, contends our present municipalities are governed. The nomadic character of a iarg-e section of our propertyless classes which, in proportion to the population is of course enormous, compared with the shifting population of London, is also a point deserving consideration. For while the departure of mamthousands of people cannot affect the metropolis, a great efflux of the propertyless class from Auckland, for instance, would be a verj* serious thing for trade and property - holders under present circumstances. But how much worse would it be if when they went out from us they left the poor ratepayers saddled with heavy obligations, contracted by happy emigrants who enjoyed the good time while it lasted and when better inducements offered elsewhere forsook us.