The Dominion. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1908. THE SECOND BALLOT BILL.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 295, 7 September 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1908. THE SECOND BALLOT BILL.

1 : Before the Sccond .Ballot Bill escaped from the Committee stage in the House of Representatives on Friday night, it was very materially altered, if not improved.' For some hours the discussion seemed to have fclie charactcr of a " stonewall," but tho opposition to the Bill broke down when the Prime Minister, adopting a suggestion put forward by the Opposi-1 tion, agreed to add to the vital clauso of the measure a proviso that a candidato who leads the first poll by a majority of 500 over his nearest opponent shall be deemed to have secured an absolute majority, whether his votes are in fact an absolute majority or not. Although in form a concession to tho opponents of the Bill, this provision is in effect practically no concession at all', arid wo are at a loss to understand how members could have accepted it as a material improvement upon tho proposition to which they had been objecting. Tho Prime Minister practically admitted that tho concession was a shadowy one, for, as he very truly said later on, when opposing Mr. Massey's attempt to substitute 250 for 500, " under his proposal it would bo to one clmnco that tho elected candidato would have secured a truo absolute

| majority." It must be remembered, also, that the larger number of fairly strong candidates who will try their fortunes under a second ballot system will make the majorities of 500 very much rarer than in the past. No less surprising than the inability of members to perceive that the concession " is no concession at all, and the proviso embodying it entirely otiose — a' dead organ in tho body of tho Bill— was the failure to note that tho principle of the alteration has no justification whatever. The figure selected is purely arbitrary. If a lead of 500 votes establishes against all argument a member's right of election, why cannot a lead of 400 votes be similarly regarded 1 Or why should not a lead of 000 votes be insisted upon 1 We shall no doubt be told that Hr. Massey disposed of these questions when he urged that " all they ought to get at an election would be a satisfactory expression of opinion from the public, and if a certain majority were obtained that would be enough." We entirely dissent from this dictum, against which it is quite sufficient to urge the plain impossibility of estimating what tho " certain majority " should be. Me. Massey was on much safer ground when ho pointed out that the amendment " quite destroyed the principle of the Bill." It is true that in most cases the lead of 500 votes will mean an absolute majority, but this may not always bo the case. To admit the proviso into the Bill is, therefore, to deny the necessity for either an absolute majority or a second ballot—to deny, that is to say, the one excuse for the Bill.

The other material alteration in the Bill was tho addition of the new clauses enforcing the cessation of all activity on the part of candidates between the ballots and the suppression of all printed comment upon the election during the same period. Will it be believed that the Houso offered practically no criticism upon these drastic proposals, and agreed to them in less than five minutes? No reason was assigned for their introduction, and the object of'the clauses must therefore be deduccd from the assumption that tho' intentions of tho House were good. Probably the suppression of meetings and the silencing of Press comment are considered necessary in order to keep the final issue secure from " undue influence." It is extremely doubtful whether the. restriction of the freedom of the candidates will prevent electioneering or make " deals " impossible. As to the silencing of tho Press, only harm-can result from it. In the first place, tho general muffling-up of everything will mean the destruction of the one chance of so sustaining public interest as to lead, to a second poll sufficiently large to ensure that the candidate finally elected will' certainly be a " majority " representative. In any case certain to be much diminished, the second poll ■ will be smaller than ever ' when the stimulus of public argument is removed. Moreover, the situation after an ineffective first poll will bo quite different from the original situation, and the public will reasonably feel that it should have tho guidance of newspaper criticism, just as tho Press will feel that it should be at liberty, in the'interests of good government, and as a matter of public policy, to discuss the changed issues and the fresh aspects of the situation. But, to look a little beyond tho immediate effect of this new " gag " upon the newspapers, there is subject for grave misgiving in so notable an interference with the freedom of the Press. The freedom of tho Press is, of course, subject already to somo restrictions, but in most cases these restrictions are maintained, and cheerfully accepted by the Press, as matters of public policy. Here, however, is the Press " gagged " where public policy demands that it should have freedom to speak. It is a-most unwholesome sign that not one member of tho. House said a word on the subject on Friday night. The Legislative Council, we trust, will not swallow without a niurmur' the drastic proposals that the Houso treated as mere details of no account whatever.