Correspondence. BOARD OF WORKS.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XXV, Issue 97, 7 August 1866, Page 3

Correspondence. BOARD OF WORKS.

To thk Editor of the • Nelson Examines. 1 Sir — I fear your interpretation of Clause 4, of the " Nelson Town Improvement Act, Amendment Act. 1858, "will proreto be not thesameaa that given by the provin<*ialauthoritirs,as I am given to understand that the Provincial Solicitor has stated his opinion of the meaning of the clause to be, that the mode of voting at the election for members of the Board of Works must be the same as that pursued at elections for members of the Provincial Council, previous to the time of passing the amendment above named. This decision of the Government (if a fact), is to be deplored, as the objtot for which the Amendment Act was passed will be fustrated. The motive which induced the Board of Works to apply to the Provincial Council to insert the 4th Clause in the Amendment Act, was, a desire to prevent doubt as. to the manner of voting, and confusion at the time of polling — to assimilate the mode of electing the Board to that of Provincial Councillors. I believe that members of the Board of Works have, for the List six elections, been chosen in the same manner as members of Council now are. This mode of recording votes has been proved to give the electors the greatest amount of liberty in the exercise of their privileges of any of the systems yet adopted in New Zealand ; preventing coercion in the heat of a contested election, and, at the same time, giving the fullest power of scrutiny after the votes are given. The system now proposed to be reintroduced does not give any of the safeguards provided in the Act now in operation ; then why try to upset an established custom that has given general satisfaction P The words in the clause, which are now being twisted into a different meaning to that heretofore given them, are, " shall in all cases be the same as is provided for the election of members of the Provincial Council" .(I quote from memory, not having a ropy of the Act by me). As I have not been iri the habit of weighing wordß, and may attach a different meaning to the clause to that of those used to legal reading, I will not try to prove my reading of the clause to be the correct one j but I will repeat my former statement, that the object of the Board in applying for the Amendment Act is lost by the introduction of ambiguous language in a legislative enactment. I am, &c., Nelson, August 6. Joseph Webb.