EDITORIAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXII, Issue 6872, 23 April 1897, Page 1

EDITORIAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

The extension of the municipal franchise is one of the questions that will engage the attention of Parliament next session. In the address which he delivered just before he left for England the Premier said that he would give to every householder a vote in municipal elections, because it was right that the people should have a voice in a matter affecting their lives and the lives of their children. The statement made by the Premier may be taken as an indication that the Government will re-iatroduce the measure next session, and it is desirable that there should be a clear and unmistakeable pronouncement of public opinion upon the question. The Wellington Post, probably the most bitter opponent of Mr Seddon to be found amongst all the journals of the colony, warmly approves of the proposal, and urges it upon the consideration of the members for Wellington. Having asked the question, " Who is a ratepayer 1 " the [ Post proceeds " The obvious answer to the question is—a person who pays rates. Yet such an answer would not be quite precise or accurate in this colony, where thousands of citizens pay rates and yet are not ratepayers —that is, are not recognised as such under our municipal laws." It points out that in Wellington, with a population of some 40,000 and close on 20,000 electors entitled to a voice in the general government of the country, there are only some 4000 persons enrolled as ratepayers. Of the remainder many are houselders who pay the rates of the houses occupied by them in their rents to the landlord, who takes the vote, "In this way," adds our contemporary, "some thousands of householders live and have lived for years in the city, with no active concern in its affairs ; no voice in the selection of Mayor, or City Cguncillors, or members of our Harbor Board, no say at all in those matters and questions affecting the welfare of the metropolis, and the health, convenience, and comfort of its people, and of themselves and their families individually. If any of these attend a ratepayers' meeting they will not be heard, nor can they exercise any influence whatever on municipal affairs in any direction. Their function as citizens appears to be to pay their rates and take such good or such bad as the 4000 enrolled ratepayers may choose to send them." What is true of Wellington is equally true of every municipality in the colony. We need scarcely say that we cordially endorse the opinion expressed by the Post that the proposed extension of the municipal franchise is much-desired, and that it is " so just that householders should have a voice in the affairs of the city in which their home is, and where they and their families have in most instances lived for a considerable number of years, that no argument is necessary to prove the need of the alteration." But it has already been seen that neither the need for the alteration nor the simple justice upon which the demand for it is based has any weight with those who are in the enjoyment of the special privilege. These people view the extension of the municipal franchise as an invasion of the sacred rights of property calling for strenuous resistance, and it is necessary that the stubborn resistance to the reform should be met with determination and all the force of argument. Advocacy of the proposed change is no' new thing with us, and it is highly gratifying to us to find the Post, which is popularly believed to have strong Conservative leanings, ranging itself on the side of those who demand reform in a direction where reform is called for as a matter of justice.

The Otago Daily Times of yesterday has an article commenting upon the doings of the Prohibition Convention which lately met in Dunedin. There is a great deal in that article to which exception might be taken as grossly misrepresenting the doings of the Convention and the desires of the Prohibitionists generally. We are not going to examine the whole of our Dunedin contemporary's statements ; but there is one matter that requires notice in order that the public may not be misled, and an element of discord be introduced into the meetings of householders for the election of School Committees on Monday evening; next. The Times says " The Otago Education Board has incurred the ire of the Convention for warning its teachers that they must not make themselves publicly offensive in pursuit of political chimeras, and an attempt will possibly be made on Monday evening next to introduce the prohibition element to the election of school committees in order to punish the Board. We presume this is intended with the view of compelling all teachers to adapt themselves to the Procustean bed of Prohibition." We have made some inquiries upon the subject, and we find that the Prohibitionists have no such intention as that attributed to them. Ib is true that the Convention passed two resolutions upon the general subject. The first of these was a strong protest against the resolution of the Education Board interfering with the personal liberty of teachers. Here it may be well to say that the Times, apparently with the object of misleading the public, has given a very ugly twist to the Board's resolution. The Board's resolution was not a mere warning to teachers " that they must not make themselves publicly offensive in pursuit of political chimeras." It was a more comprehensive inhibition, depriving teachers of their right of speech or public act in respect to all political affairs, or anything else likely to bring them into conflict with any section of the community. Against that resolution we entered our protesb some months ago, and it should be pleasing to all who prize liberty of speech to find any body of men, no matter by what bond they may be united, protesting against such a deprivation of rights as the Education Board of Otago has been guilty of. The Board having treated with indifference the requests of several School Committees that the obnoxious resolution should be rescinded, the Committee passed a second resolution urging householders to elect to School Committees men who would see to it that the liberties of teachers were not interfered with. There was no hint given that would justify the conclusion |of the Times, and no thought of making election to a School Committee contingent upon adherence to the principle of Prohibition. Had there been any attempt to import the Prohibitition question into the election of School Committees, we should have been found condemning it and calling our readers to resist such an unseemly proceeding. Bub in the resolutions of the Convention we see nothing that calls for condemnation ; on the contrary, we see something that deserves commendation. All that the Convention have asked for is that all teachers, no matter what their views may be with respect to Prohibition or any other question, may be allowed, in common with the rest of mankind and womankind, to give utterance to their opinions. It is freedom .of speech and personal liberty, and not the promulgation of the doctrine of Prohibition that is contended for by the Convention, and every man and woman in the community can,

without the slightest suspicion of favoring Prohibition, join with the Convention in defence of the principle which the Board outrages? We will go even a step further, and say that the meetings of householders on Monday evening will fall short in the discharge of their duty if they do not protest against the Board's invasion of the rights of teachers as citizens.