MUNICIPAL REFORM.

Evening Star, Issue 9387, 8 May 1894, Page 4

MUNICIPAL REFORM.

TO THE KDITOK. Sin,—lt is very gratifying to note the keen public interest that has been aroused iu municipal matters. People who never troubled themselves before are now crying urgently for reform. The contagion has evidently spread to some of our M.H.lls, and the junior member for Dunedin has drafte I a Bill on the subject. It is matter for regret that New Zealand members of Parliament do not, a3 a rule, bestir themselves until they are pushed forward by the people, but to their credit be it said when they know the people are behind them they are not backward in courage. Their infirmity of the ilesh seems to bo in the direction of " waiting to see how the cat will jump." The day may come, however, when our public men will lead and not follow the people; but until that time comes we must at least be thankful for good followers. These f oregoiug remarks do not apply to Mr W. Hutchison er his proposed Municipal Franchise Bill. Mr Hutch son is generally ahead of public sentiment; it is the exception when ho lags in the rear. I am sorry to think that his Bill, as published in your columns last evening, is one of tho exceptions. It merely provides for what is already provided for—viz., the right of '' householders " to voteat municipal elections for the return of councillors. Under the existing provisions any person with a three mouths' teunucy agreement may have his or her name enrolled as a municipal voter. Mr Hutchisou's Bill provides for twelve mo t'.is' residence and four months' tenancy—a difference scarcely worth striving for. The only genuine reform provided by the Bill is that every pei'son on the parliamentary roll shall be entitled to vote for the return of mayor. Why tho parliamentary roll should be adopted for the election of mayor and not of councillors is a matter which I trust Mr Hutchison will explain. It would also be satisfactory to learn what special claims a four months' tenant has over a parliamentary elector that he or she should be privileged to vote for the return of mayor and councillors, while the latter may only vote for the return of mayor. If Mr Hutchison would also explain whether his Bill provides for tho abolishment of dual voting it would bo satisfactory. I have not the Act of 1886 by mo at the time of writing, and the last-mentioned matter is not made cleiir in the proposed Bill. I confess I am not much impressed with the Bill as a whole, and least of all with the proposal to have two municipal rolls—one for' the election of mayor on a manhood and womanhood suffrage basis, and the other for the election by householders of city councillors.—l am, etc.,

H. E. Muiii,

Dunedin, May 5.