SIR JOSEPH WARD AND THE ELECTORAL DEPARTMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 12071, 15 September 1902, Page 3

SIR JOSEPH WARD AND THE ELECTORAL DEPARTMENT.

'10 THE 1,5)1 TOR.

Sir,—ln this morning's paper T read that j Sir Joseph Ward said in the House yesterday that, "The trouble in the Auckland! electorate was that both sides had attempted ! to .-tuff the roll in a manner that was disgraceful." While not sure to whom the speaker was referring, whether the Liberals, and Oppositionists, or prohibitionists, or liquor traffickers, 1 surmise it wad the latter. On behalf of the prohibitionists i run give those statements an unqualified and emphatic denial, and challenge- Sir J. Ward, Mr. Kin;.;, or any other elector; authority to disprove my statement. Being officially associated with the Rev. W. .i. Williams, (he then president of our league, and Mr. T. J. Bull, the secretary, I can leave the public who know us, to judge as to the likelihood of our proposing to stuff the roll with (.lead Chinamen and others, and transferring people from other electorates. Evidently it was done by someone who the Department know : why don't they say? Or more to the point, why did they not prosecute the people who resort oil to such practices? The prohibitionists may lie fighters, and should be. but they fight fair. And as citizens they have a perfect right to damand that the Government give them, or see that they get, fair play as'electors. So many people have such an unreasonable prejudice against: prohibitionists, simply because they will not trouble to think that all we aro seeking is a. tree expression of the public will on the liquor question at the ballot-box. Hence to us, as it ought to be to every patriot, the importance of a pure electoral roll, giving every qualified elector a vote and preventing disqualified persons voting. We lost confidence in the administration of the Auckland electoral office it) the campaigns of 1896 and 1599. The only alteration since is that the Government have taken the responsibility of the Department upon their own shoulders; they have flouted and defied tho Auckland people, who, it they have not lost their manhood, should reply at the coming election by rejecting all candidates who arc bound body and soul to the Seddon-cum-Ward administration. I enclose copy of a letter sent to Mr. John King in 1899, which. being on public business, T should be glad to sec von publish.l am, etc.. September 12, 1902, R. Fp.fnth. [F.NC(.OSUfiE.] Auckland, December 11. 1899. To R. French. Esq. Deaf Sir, —.Now thai political excitement is beyond recall, I shall esteem it a favour it' you would tie so arootl as to let- me know what is your impartial .judgment with respect to the electoral roll recently ui-ed for City of Auckland election? Ms reasons for writing are that t desire to hide nothing from my permanent chief, and, no matter what your reply may be. it will t?o intact to head office.— faithfully, JiVO, KiXG, Registrar.

Auckland. December 16, 1899. John Kins. Esq., Registrar of Electors. Sir,—ln repty' to your circular of the 11th i)ist., asking my "impartial judgment with respect to the electoral roll recently used for the City of Auckland election," 1 beg: to state that, in in,'.' opinion, the Registrar, in its compilation, practically ignored the Electoral Act. I sent down a number of names, tile claims of which were in every respect rood; about a third were not, placed on the roil. As they were all sent down together, on what priii- | c:i)ie some were placed on the roll and other* lei off 1 cannot surmise. Neither did the Registrar give any information when written to, but. instead replied most discourteously. On one occasion I accompanied an elector to the offl.ee, and saw the Registrar respecting his claim; all thai was said was: "You have signed two claims." The elector stated the circumstances; all the satisfaction given was: "It will in? inquired into." Signing mora than one application is no bar to enrolment under the Act. In my judgment resectable claimants lor enrolment, whose applications have been witnessed by well-known, responsible citizens, should not. bo subject to inquiry as to their bona-tide>\ either by circular from the Registrar or a visit from '•••.' police. Such inquiry cave great annoyance, and in numbers of cases, although rcmorted on satisfactorily. still tlnnr names were not on the roll. Amongst the hundreds of peopie who have been denied one of the chief rights of citizenship—the right to vote—there 13 in the city a strong feeling of indignation. And justly so. seems that a .similar refusal on the part, of the Boers is one of the chief causes of the present war in Africa. The easy manner by which names have been removed from the City roll, in some cases by ho2us transfers to other electorates—showing that the provisions of the Electoral Act, which 'seek to safeguard the interests of electors, has been ignored—is very reprehensible. The great importance of the question, bciiv.-. a« it is, the very foundation of the people's political power and privilege, demand* at the hands of the Government a full, strict, and impartial inquiry. From such an inquiry needed amendments to the Electoral Act would doubtless result, and possihlv other changes equally necessary. As you are aware. I have frequently, from the public platform, and through the press, directed public .attention to various import provisions of the Electoral Act which have not be«ni carried out. so that doubtless n;v reply ha--' been somewhat fcnticirvited.—-I remain, yours respectfully, P.. FREKCH