PROXY VOTING: ITS ABUSE.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIV, Issue 3512, 17 October 1868, Page 4

PROXY VOTING: ITS ABUSE.

To ths Editor of the Dailt Southern Cross. Sir,— When the High ways Act, 1866-67, was firsb brought inro force, 1 fe t it to be uiy duty to draw attention, in a letter signed " Soubriquet," to a clau-e which might easily be used in a manuer that was never iuteuded. Ihe 10th clause commences thus ; " Such meeting, ten electors being present in penMn or by proxy m writing." Here is the def ct. Oue or two per son", holding proxies, miy constitute a meeting ; or, what is still woise, the wi^ht-s of a large meeting may be frustrated by one or two persons who have obtained proxies from uon-resideuts and others, who are not aware of the use which ia to be made of them. We have just experienced an instance of tbis in the Upper Mahuraugi. It will be evident that I am writing from a sense of duty and not a feeling of pique, for a glance at the subjoined poll will show that the wish of the district was that I should be a trustee :- Dyer, 40 ; Wickham, 32 ; Meikle, 30 ; Murray, 30 ; Williams, 30 ; Trethowen, 20 ; Jordan, 9 j Phillips, 8 ; Barton, 6 ; Wallis, 3. But now mark the difference after Messrs. Trethowen and Phillips have brought their proxies to be*r : Wickham, 65; Williams, 61 ; Trethowen, 56^ Phillips, 46 ; Barton, 42 j Dyer, 40 ; the others in the same position as before. If Me*srs. Trethowen and Phillips were of opinion that the electors were wrong, and that Messrs. Dyer, Meikle, and Murray were not worthy of the confidence repo-ed in them, they acted perfectly ri^ht in i ejecting them. But ii. is possible they male a. mistake when ih^y set on one ti-ie the public verdict aud rai-ed themselvts and Mr. Barton respectively ficra 20, 8, 6, to 56, 46, 42. At all events they showed bad taste in forcing them elves and colleague into this position in opposition to the general wish. Now, such a proceeding as this Rhows that there must be something radically wrong in the framing of the Act. It you refer to the 7th clause, you will perceive ihafc the electors vote according to the am' mic for widch they are assesses, but that non^, however large their property may bs, can have more than 6 votes ; yet here we find oue nun, who holds 173 acres>, who is assessed at £1 St. 10 J. and is entitled to two votes, voting for 6,252 acres, assessed at £52 25., and recording 29 vot s ; whereas if it had been all his own property there would have been only 6 votes recorded for it. It mu't be apparent to all that uo two persons would t ike the trouble to collect proxies from every quarter with the intention of nuking themselves and a friend trustees unless they haJ some object in view. It must be apparent that th.it object was one of which the general public would not approve ; otherwise why not have made known their intentions and have appealed to fuie public on th'e day of election ? Where would have been the necessity for secresy 1 Ho one knew that thrse proxies had besn obtained, and they were not brought to bear 1 11 the the close of the poll — till too late to a/ert the issue I leave it to the non residents themselves to decide whether it would not be wiser for them to waiv«j their right to vote by proxy and leave their interests in the hands of the general public, than commit so many conflicting interests to the keeping of one man ? . For private int-rests must undoubtedly clash. Apo'.ogi-mg for trespassing so much tin your good offices, — I am, Ac, R. (J. Dter. Ul>p*r Mahuiangi, October 13, 1868.