Hawke's Bay Herald. MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 1878.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5162, 26 August 1878, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Herald. MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 1878.

The Electoral Bill of the Government passed its second reading last Friday night ; its next stage will be the consideration of its details in committee. Among the details, the two most important points are the Maori double vote and the system of numbering the voting papers. We have several times given expression to our opinion respecting the former, and we have been gratified to notice, from what was said during the debate on the second reading of the bill, that the injustice of the double vote is recognised by many members of the House, and that they are also fully alive to the danger of permitting European constituencies to be swamped with native votes. As we remarked in a former issue, the evil will not be so great when the Maori vote is restricted to the rate-paying qualification, but the principle is equally wrong when it ' is considered that while the natives will be allowed to take part in elections for European members, the latter are not permitted to vote in elections for Maori representatives. The question materially afreets the purity of the electoral rolls, for the Maori names on them will be in actual fact no better than if they were dummy names placed there by the Europeans who are versed in such tactics. The matter is therefore one that deeply concerns those constituencies in which there are any considerable number of native residents, and they certainly should take action to strengthen the hands of those members of the House who are disposed to fight the point in committee. The proper, and indeed the only mode of strengthening those members is to petition the House on the subject, a course which should be followed without delay. The objection to numbering the voting papers jis that it destroys confidence in the secrecy of the ballot. It is no doubt quite true that perfect secrecy is preserved, notwithstanding the papers being numbered ; but among the great majority of electors there is a conviction that the numbers are used for the purpose of ascertaining how the votes are given. It is an erroneous conviction we admit, but it is useless to combat against it while the means of identifying the voter with the vote are retained. Whatever may be the safeguards provided against disclosure, however much it may be surrounded with penalties, while it is possible to disclose how the electors haye voted the bulk of them will believe that it is done whenever those who have the custody of the papers may desire to make the revelation. The system of voting by ballot has been adopted expressly to secure to the voter inviolable secrecy as to the way he may vote, and there should bo no room left for the belief that the secrecy is a delusion, and the ballot merely a mockery and a snare. The retention of the system of numbers is defended by Mr Stout on the ground of necessity, so as to guard against a person voting 1 at more than one polling-booth. There are, we believe, also reasons for the numbering in connection with the investigation of an election on petition or otherwise. But we are quite sure that it is pi-acticable to devise a system that will prevent double voting, and will obviate the necessity for -ascertaining, in an investigation subsequent to an election, how a person has voted, without requiring the numbering of the papers. At any rate, whatever may be the outcome of abstaining from this practice, even if it should happen now and then that an elector has voted twice when he should have only toted once, such a breach of the law is of far less importance than attaining the certainty that voting by ballot is really !

secret, and that it is impossible at any time or for any purpose, to identify the voter with his vote. There are a few other points of minor importance in respect to which there will be attempts to amend the bill. Woman suffrage is one of them. Confined as it is to tho ratepayiug qualification, we really cannot see any valid objection to it. All the argument that has been advanced about it being the means of introducing disunion in a household, setting the wife against the husband, has little or no application to the restricted qualification of paying rates, for it would rarely happen that a wife would be a ratepayer in the lifetime of her husband- There is, however, the larger question involved, that of permitting women to be elected as members of the House of Representatives. If through being on the ratepayers' roll women get placed on the electoral roll, they will be eligible as candidates for the House, and we scarcely think we have yet reached that stage of civilisation that will admit of such an innovation. On this point, we think, tli ere will be a large majority in the House against Mr Stout, but we would hope that the amendment will not extend to depriving women of the limited franchise the. Attorney-General proposes to confer.