The Dominion. FRIDAY, November 5,, 1909. "THE DEMOCRATIC FRANCHISE."

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 656, 5 November 1909, Page 6

The Dominion. FRIDAY, November 5,, 1909. "THE DEMOCRATIC FRANCHISE."

* Although it is satisfactory that tho Government resisted tlic demand of tho extromo Radicals in tho House that the Charitable Aid Boards should be elected on the Parliamentary roll, tiio discussion of tho Bill when it was in Committee on Tuesday last was both disturbing !ind significant Mr. Fowlds, although ho said that there wore several objections to adopting tho Parliamentary franchise, referred specifically only to one of them, and that one of the weakest of all, namely, the extra cost of preparing the rolls. The question involved is a question of principlo. If the Boards were elected on what the Radicals call "the democratic franchise," and if the whole cost of charitable : aid wero borne by the Consolidated Fund, , we should quickly have a record of extravagance and artificial pauperisation which even the famous Poplar Guardians might look up to with envy and respect. At first sight it might appear that as tho Exchequer bears a share of the cost of i charitable aid the general body of contributors to the Exchequer—tho whole I bodj of Parliamentary voters, that is to I Bay—should have some voice in tho disi burscmont of the funds. But if that wore a sound principle, it would bo necessary Ito apply it generally, and to give tho Parliamentary voters a voice and a vote in the management of every fund and institution receiving grants from the public purse. No doubt this is just what our i Socialists want; thoy would probably re- | ply, if prossod, that it is most "undemocratic" that "the people" do not elect tho officers of tho Salvation Army, tho University College Councils, the Hospital Boards, and, in general, tho managing authbritics of all bodies charged with tho expenditure of any part of Exchequer moneysi Sensible men, however, will sou in this reductio ad absurdum tho unsoundness of the principle postulated. Our Socialists showed pretty plainly in Tuesday's debate that "Democracy," in thoir viow, moans spending other people's money. The cost of charitable aid in this country is already great onough without being further swelled by an indiscriminate franchise. Some of tho Socialists were logical enough to admit that if tho Parliamentary voters arc to have the power of electing tho sponding bodies the money to bo spent should como wholly from the Consolidated Fund. That, as wo say,yis a thdroughly logical idea. It is also a thoroughly ruinous one. For wo aro constantly being told that it is "un- j democratic" 'to place any large spending | Department of tho State under non-poli-tical control, and our "democrats," if' they succeeded m making charitable aid J a wholly Imporial charge, and the disponsing of it tho business of Boardb elected on the Parliamentary franchise, would oppose tho'establishment of an in-' dependent Board of Control. Then the existing evils of our financial system would receive a new and lupous addition. To the scramble for railways and tho scramble for roads and bridges would bo added a worse scramble for charitable aid. The evils of tho present system of public works expenditure would appear in the charitable aid expenditure. Members would cultivate tho pauper vole. That this is no fanciful picture few people will deny who havo any acquaintance with the results of lavishness in granting poor rolief, and that such a system would make for lavishness is obvious even without the proof that is furnished by tho history of public works expenditure in New Zealand. The prescntisystem may not bo the best that is available, but it at anyrate preserves something of the principle that representation must bo earned by responsibility. It would bo quite in koeping with tho new "democracy" if tho fow wore rated and the many controlled tho sponding. Grossly unjust as such a system would be, it would, in our mind, bo preferablo to the moro equitable but ruinous alternative of a system under which bodies elected by the whole public would spend money voted by tho General Assembly. jßoforo leaving the subject we must note a very significant observation by the Christchurch organ of the Government. It is quite angry with Mb. Fowlds for not giving way to the Socialists. "It appears to us," it Bays, "that tho House would have accopted whatever measure of reform the Government cared to propose. Backed by tho very strong Radical section of the Liberal party tho Government would havo had littlo difficulty in carrying through tho full democratic principle." Could a stronger indictment of tho Government party than that bo penned? Tho Ministerialists, v,o aro told quite frankly, arc ready to make duoka and drakes of tho public's money juafc as the Government chooses to order! Wo romember thnt much the same thing was said of the Land Bill in IBOG We were told that if it had chosen the Government could have forced that measure through, and that it sheuW have been forced through. This was the Land Bill of 1906, which even Dn. Findlay later had tc admit waa so utterly bad and viei' oub thttt.it-wa* beyond oven tho poseibil. it; oi ameßdmeaii