EDITORIAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXI, Issue 6695, 22 September 1896, Page 1

EDITORIAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

+ Some at least of the Conservative papers do not like the report of the Legislative Council Banking Committee. It is altogether too much in favor of the Government, and particularly of the exColonial Treasurer. When the Committees of inquiry were chosen these same papers proclaimed aloud that they had no faith in the Committee set up by the Lower House, because it was composed almost "entirely of members from the Government side of the House; but they w.ere equally emphatic in their assertions that the Council's Committee,vwhich was mainly composed of members hostile to the Ministry, would produce a report that the country could accept without demur. It was, in fact, a Committee entirely to the liking of the Opposition Press, for it was an Opposition Committee, and it was expected that it would be loyal to its party and produce a report damaging to the Government. But" it has failed to realise anticipations, and its report is rejected as inadequate to the occasion and altogether too lenient. The fact is that the Opposition Press had hoped that the Committee would be able to discover something—something" that would - tell against the Government at the ;coming election. No one knew exactly what the Committee was expected to find out, nor whether there really was anything to expose. But these were immaterial considerations. The Opposition Press had come to the conclusion that there must be some hidden secret —some flagrant abuse of office, or some terrible dereliction of duty ; and a Committee of' keen-scented opponents of the Ministry were looked to to ferret it out,-and expose it. That was what the Opposition Press t deemed to be the great purpose of the inquiry, arid the Opposition Press has been sadly disappointed because that purpose has not been served. Of course the result is very disappointing to the Opposition Press. But the Committee is not to be blamed. The fact is that there was really nothing to disclose—no great sin either of | omission or commission. The Government throughout the whole of the banking business had acted honorably and in the best interests of the colony, and the Committee, having a regard for decency and its own honor, had no option but to produce a report which completely disproves all the insinuations, innuendoes, and allegations in which a reckless and virulent Opposition Press has indulged for months past. Therefore the report is not at all to their liking, and they refuse to view it as conclusive, or even as worthy of acceptance. Their heart's desire to see the Government lampooned has not been gratified, and they are prepared to rend their political friends who mainly composed the Committee for having failed to rise—or, rather, descend —to the occasion.

From all parts of the colony there comes information that the coming general election will produce quite a crop of candidates for Parliamentary honors. It is, therefore, quite clear that there is to be a great splitting of votes, and that, unless the law is amended, the new House will contain, as does the present, a number of members returned by minorities. It is needless to argue that such a condition of things is eminently unsatisfactory. Every representative of the people should represent the mind of his constituents so far as it is possible for a majority to be in agreement upon political questions. No man, however ready he might be to accommodate himself to all the varying idiosyncrasies of the electors, can be thoroughly representative of everyone who votes for him ; but the Parliamentary representative should be the exponent of the mind of a majority of the electors upon the broad political questions upon which the country is called upon to pronounce an authoritative opinion. If it were otherwise there would really be no merit in periodical appeals to the people. It follows, therefore, that if a man is elected by the votes of a minority he cannot in any sense of the word be called representative. It is one of the blemishes of our electoral system that it should be possible for one who is not in touch with the electors to be elected because of a division of votes amongst a large number of candidates., As it is the inalienable right of every man to become a candidate, there remains no cure for the existing blemish except to make it imperative that a candidate shall: receive a majority of the votes polled before he can enter the House. The second ballot would ensure this, and we hope that Parliament will not rise until provision has been made for taking a second ballot where no candidate obtains a majority of the votes cast' at the first poll.

A correspondent signing himself "Protest " has asked us to say whether or not the Prohibitionist's view of possibilities in connection with the licensing poll, as provided for under the existing Act, is correct. What the Prohibitionist has put forward as possible under the Act is correct enough so far as it goes, but the cases put are extreme, and are not in the least likely to happen if the Prohibitionists exercise to the full the power conferred upon them. The writer in the Prohibitionist apparently proceeds upon the presumption that a voter cannot or will not vote in favor of more than one issue—that when he votes for no license he must necessarily vote against a reduction of the number of licenses. But the Act does not say so, nor does the writer in the Prohibitionist really say so. If our correspondent will read again carefully the extract he has sent he will see that the Prohibitionist has not written in condemnation of the law, but by way of warning to the temperance party to be wary how they cast their votes. The Act submits three issues to the electors as follow : 1. That the number of licenses existing in the district continue. 2. That the number of licenses existing in the district be reduced. 3. That no licenses be granted in the district. By clause 6 each voter is entitled to vote on any one or two of the three proposals, and if Prohibitionists desire to. avert the contingencies which the: writer ia the Prohibitionist has pointed out as possible to arise under the Act because of ignorance or-indifference on the parb of the electors, and not from any unfairness in the law, then they will: merely strike out the top line and 'aliow;"their votes, to be counted first for no license, and,dn the event of that proposal not being carried,, then for the alternative ;of reduction. Our correspondent will, therefore, see that there is no (lfgiplar tion as "insane and unjust," and that he is merely beating the air and expending' -for Bopghtohis virtuous iniignation. ' '