Correspondence.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume X, Issue 641, 19 August 1853, Page 3

Correspondence.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE ' SOUTHERN CROSS.' Sir, — I was much surprised at your remarks in the 'Southern Cross' of July Bth, in reference to the voting at Kangiawhia, You then stated, "Afc Rangiawhia too, a small settlement of intelligent and industrious colonists, not one njan could be found to record his vqte for the military intrude!', whilst the seven who did poll, were all in favour of Mr. Brown, and more would have polled, had not the Rev. Mr. Morgan overpereuade.4 then? that their votes would not ,

be held ggpd in Auckland." I beg leave directly to contradict the above statement. I did not take any part in the election, either directly or indirectly. You state that "more would have polled, had »not the Rev. Mr. Morgan over-persuaded them that their votes would not be held good in Auckland." You are of course prepared to give me the names of the persons who were "over-persuaded" by me not to vote, and I shall feel obliged by your doing so. I did not use any influence or persuasion with any person not to vote at the late election at Rangiawhia. All persons whose " votes would be held good in Auckland" had a legal right to vote, and it was their duty in so doing to vote for the candidate who, in their opinion, was most likely to render efficient services to the Colony. On reading your remarks it occurred to me that a private conversation I had had with one of the voters, had been noted down and reported to you, and on this you grounded your statement of July Bth. I will therefore give you the particulars of that conversation, and the reasons on which I grounded my private opinion as expressed to the person in question. On the morning of the Election, about 10 o'clock, as I was standing by the Church now being erected at this station, looking at the work then being performed by the carpenters, Charles Smith (a squatter living about five miles from Otawhao) came up to me, and said, in the presence of the carpenters, " Mr. Morgan, what is your opinion ; are we Europeans in the country entitled to vote ?" My reply was, " Charley, in my opinion, none of the votes of the Europeans would be considered legal, if a scrutiny should take place ; for as all the land in this district, except the Mission Stations, is the property of the Aborigines, and the Europeans are squatting upon that land contrary to the letter of the law, they cannot, by a breach of the law, become entitled to any privileges conferred by the law." Smith replied, " that is my opinion ; Ido not think that any of us have a right to vote." The two carpenters, Messrs. Chithara and Wheeler, then expressed their opinions that none of the European squatters had a legal right to vote. These are the particulars of the conversation which passed on the subject as near as I can now recollect them. I have requested the carpenters who were present to state the subject of the conversation, and they affirm that the above is correct as far as they can now remember. Wheeler informs me that on his receiving a voting paper for Mr. Brown, prior to my conversation with Smith, he had some conversation with Chitham, and they were both of opinion that the Europeans in the country had no legal right to vote. It appears, therefore, that some who had been pressed to vote for Mr. Brown did not vote, not because they had been over-persuaded by the Rev. Mr. Morgan, but because they were themselves of opinion that their votes j would not be legal, and they were therefore | unwilling to give votes which, in their own | consciences, they considered would be illegal. I am informed that about 17 persona in this district were registered in Auckland as voters. I believe, generally speaking, these parties did not know that they had been registered as voters until they received letters and voting papers requesting them to vote for Mr. Brown. lam informed that no voting papers were sent up to solicit votes for Lieutenant - Colonel Wynyard. The settlers, therefore, had not, if this is correct, a fair opportunity of expressing \ their opinions in reference to the merits of the two candidates. It was, therefore, a bold and unwarrantable assertion on your I ! part, that " not one man could be found in the district of Rangiawhia to record his vote for the military intruder, but that more would have polled for Mr Brown, had not the Rev. Mr. Morgan over-persuaded them that their votes would not be held good in Auckland." Had both candidates been represented by their supporters at the poll, perhaps some who did not vote would have recorded their votes for Lieut.-Colonel Wynyard. Having read so much in the ' Southern Cross' during the last few weeks on the subject of the legality of votes, I cannot for a moment suppose that Mr. Brown would wish any person to vote for him, who was not legally entitled to vote, and whose " vote would not be held good in Auckland," in the event of a scrutiny being made by the supporters of Lieut. Colonel Wynyard. I will therefore give you the grounds on which I formed the opinion expressed to Smith, that the squatters in this neighbourhood had not a legal right to vote. I am not here discussing the justice or the injustice of the law in reference to squatting. I only take the letter of the law as I find it, and as it bears upon the subject of voting. The question proposed by Smith was, " Are the Europeans in the country entitled to vote ? or, in other words, what constitutes a legal vote ? The Constitution Act, sec. 7. Qualification of voters, " requires, Ist, That every voter shall have a freehold estate in possession, situate within the district, &c." or, 2nd, .that he shall have a leasehold estate in possession, &c, or 3rd., that he shall be a householder within the limits of a town, &c, or 4th, that he shall be a householder without the limits of a town, of the clear annual value of five pounds, &c, Of the persons registered as. voters in this district, I am of opinion, let, that none of them legally hold either freehold or leasehold estates in the .district. By legally holding an estate, I mean the occupying of an estate for which a Crown grant has been issued ', such occupation only, being legal in the eye of the law. 2nd. It is certain as they are living in the country, that they are not householders within the limits of a town. 4th, Are they then legally householders without

' the limits of a town to the clear annual value of five pounds. In my opinion they are not. None of the residents registered as voters, live on land granted by the Crown j and the houses in which some of them reside, are not only not worth the clear annual value of five pounds rental, but if purchased, would not bring five pounds, and in some cases not the half of that sum. You can come and inspect them if you think it necessary. As then, the above are facts which cannot be denied, and are well known to all in the district, when a neighbour requested my private opinion as to their qualification as voters, I had no hesitation In giving him my private opinion that none of the persons in this district registered as , ! voters, had a legal right to vote, as they I did not possess the necessary qualifications ! required by the law, claim any privileges given by the law to certain persons recognized as justly entitled to them. When I replied to Smith's question, I considered our conversation as, private, and never expected that it would form the basis of an attack in your paper. I should not have troubled you with these remarks, had my attention not been called to the subject by the remarks in your paper of July 8 th. I hare forwarded a copy of the above to the' New Zealander.' I remain, Sir, &c, John Morgan*

[We are rather pleased than otherwise to find the Rev. Mr. Morgan so sensitive under the comparatively unimportant observations which we made on a former occasion "as to his interference with the Electors — as it proves at least his desire to appear quite neutral in the matter, and we doubt not he fancied he was acting up to this belief at the very time that his own arguments and opinions were influencing voters as we stated. Indeed his own Letter admits quite enough to prove the case against himself, and therefore at once relieves us from all necessity of supporting our remarks by reference to names, and so enables us to abstain from what might very likely create ill feeling in his district, and also revive a bygone controversy. Mr. Morgan appears to justify his conduct by the following acute piece of reasoning: —"I am informed that no voting papers were sent up to solicit votes for Lt.Colonel Wynyard. The settlers, therefore, had not, if this is correct, a fair opportunity of expressing their opinions in reference to the merits of the two candidates." In other words, Colonel Wynyard did not canvass at Rangiawhia, and therefore it would have been wrong to vote against him. With regard to the legality of the votes, it is a pity that Mr. Morgan should have attempted to give an opinion without better consideration. lie might very easily have discovered that the parties being on the Register of Voters were therefore legally entitled to record their votes for any candidate they chose. Mr.. Morgan intimates that wo can come and inspect the houses if we think it necessary. The permission italicized, by way of empha.sis, in the original, is most gracious. The simple fact remains after all that many votes were lost through the Rev. Mr. Morgan's political interference, though it 13 quite likely that this result was neither intended nor anticipated by him.- -Ed.]