ThE SECOND BALLOT ACT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 318, 3 October 1908, Page 4

ThE SECOND BALLOT ACT.

The Second Ballot Bill, which probably has damaged more political reputations than any other measure of recent years, has become law. It is a slight consolation to the public that this noxious Act, introduced without warning, and in defiance of the public will and of the traditional rules of Parliamentary government, in order to serve a paltry party end, is at least shorn of the infamous clause by means of which the Government sought to take away from the citizens their, right of public meeting and their right to' the service of their guardian, the Press. That the Govcrnmont has dropped the "gag',' clause is a s&bjcct for rejoicing, but the Government cannot avoid the discredit of having introduced it, and of having fought strenuously for it.in the face of the strongest and most general indignation that has ever greeted a political proposal in the country's history. Had the nowspapers flagged in their fight for the public's rights, this bad clause would assuredly have been embodied in the Act. For its abandonment tho country can thank the Government's dread of an outraged public opinion, sincc it is quite certain that the mind which conceived tho outrage, and which strove hard to carry it into effect, is still capable of working its will if itAdared to . do so. The Government will go to the country, as we believe it will bo remembered in political history, as the Government which desired, and which unsuccessfully attempted, to destroy one of tho most sacred rights of the people. The Prime Minister evidently gave much thought to his explanation of the reasons which induced him to abandon the clause. Tho real reason, of course, was his fear of the public's practical censure. Ho had imagined that the public, which endures much and which has been dosed into apathy by fifteen years of " Liberal" rule, would endure anything. When ho learned— with what shock of surprise we can guess —that tho public has not entirely lost its faculty of protest, he realised that ho must withdraw. But how to do it without losing prestige'! ' The Council had modified tho " gag " clause by giving the Press a measure of freedom while still gagging the public and the candidates. He therefore decided to object to the amendment on the ground of its unfairness. Sooner, he said in effect, than consent to such an injustice, ho would abandon the clause altogether. Ho forgot that this line of action, certainly the best open to him, implied the doctrino that it is not worth while inflicting a grievous wrong unless it has a universal operation. To such a • pass has practical " Liberalism " brought our astute Prime Minister. Tho disappearance of the clause is. welcome for more than the immediate fact that tho country has boeu saved from a jjrosß oukA&t: upon papular lilurl£, It

is welcome as the failure of a move that would have established, a precedent for, and a beginning of, an intolerable political tyranny. Had the clause been passed, logic would have suggested, and: the political necessities of the Government rt'ould have decided, that the prohibition or the restriction of Press criticism and public discussion should operate before tho first ballot. More than a hint of : such a possibility was dropped by Ministers in tho recent controversy. The Hon. ■J. M'Gowan can always bo trusted to rc; fleet only such light as emanates- from Cabinet, and he argued that tho proceedings between tho ballots should be treated as a Court ease is treated when it. is sub judice. The Attorney-General defended the same doctrine when, in reminding the Legislative Council that : the Press's liberty of comment is already restricted by tho rules governing: cases sub judicc, he argued that the now restriction proposed had already a.' precedent. And as tho quotation of a precedent implies an affirmation of likeness between tho new arid the old, the Attorney-General's argument is ultimately identical with Mr. M'Gowan's. In abandoning the " gag " clause and retaining tho rest of the Bill, Parliament, as wo showed in a recent article, has acted directly in opposition to the practice of tho British Parliament. There it is held that in a disagreement between tho two Houses oach House must contend for the preservation of its own enactment. Since, in the case of the Second Ballot Bill, the Legislative Council had mitigated a drastic clauso passed by the House, it was the duty of tho House and its leader to strive for tho'removal of such a modification. It was contrary to British. practice, as May makes clear, that tho House should havo abandoned' tho clause. This strictness of the British procedure, as wo pointed out, is a chock against carelessness on tho part of either Legislature. To nothing is tho clearness and soundness of British Acts—irrespective of their wisdom—more largely duo than to tho foundation of British procedure on the assumption that every enactment by eithcj House is well-considered and deliberate, and to tho consequent lack of means for escape from the dilommas arising out of hastiness and ignorance. In thus widely departing from tho wholesomo British I example, the New Zealand Parliament has put a premium upon slovenliness and haste. A precedent has boon set .up renders unnecessary in tho future any particular caro in dealing with|Bills. The whole history of tho Second Ballot Act is thercforo most discreditable to the Government and to Parliament. • ; Tho public should not be permitted to forget the names of those who assisted'; the Government in its noxious transactions in connection with this measure. '