THE BALLOT.

Otago Witness, Issue 919, 10 July 1869, Page 2

THE BALLOT.

The opposition offered to the Ballot Bill in the House was in some respects exceedingly whimsical. It was a ludicrous piece of inconsistency, for instance, on the part of Mr Carleton, to oppose Ihe Ballot Bill the day after he had declaimed against the insufficiency of the law for preventing corrupt practices at elections. Tf bribery and other practices of the kind prevail at our elections, the Ballot at once suggests itself as a natural remedy. For no candidate, however eager for election, would lavish money in the purchase of votes, while he had no means of ascertaining whether the vote he had purchased was actually recorded in his favour. Mr Cahi,eton asked tho Government whether they intended to bring in a Bill providing moro effectually for the prevention of corrupt practices at elections ; and in doing so, he alluded to tho necessity of protecting those who woro disposed to kocp the law against those who woro disposed to break it. Tho present Corrupt Practices Act 1)0 declares to bo a nullity. A scarecrow is wanted; but the Act! mentioned isn't half a scarecrow. So Mr j Carlkton proposes that tho method of trial recently adopted in England with reference to Election Petitions, should bo adopted in Now Zealand. As tho mothod is a good ono in itsolf, and a decided improvement on tho old system, wo boo no reason why it should not bo established hero. B^t Mr C.uilbton'B implied reasoning op the subject of elootoral morals is mysterious. He appears to think that whilo it is necessary to punish candidates who offer bribes for votes, »t is not at alj necessary to protect tho votors from demoralisation. If he does not think so, on what ground does ho oppose tho Ballot 1 Is it to bo supposed that any Corrupt Practices Act wo can pw» would

afford :an equ^' ; B^cunty;;;;|agaiii|t the tekersise .Apf, i&moralL infltience^J at a Contested election ? v f The Ballot* is regarded. N by;;iis adypcjEitea as/4lie only Jeffeciual means of checking corrupt practices, just asit is the only effectual means of preventing intimidation. It has at last come into favour in England, not only because it preserves the freedom of the voter, bjit from a conviction that no Acts of Parliament — however , stringent — can prevent bribery. The Imperial Legislature has passed many Acts for that purpose j but the result is acknowledged failure. From 1695 to the present time, one Act after another has been introduced, and one example after another has been made. Members of Parliament have been heavily fined and imprisoned for violating the law, and elections have been. declared void by the dozen. It is in the nature of the case that no penal enactments can suppress such an offence as that of bribery. The. temptation to commit the offence is on both sides too strong to be resisted ; while mutual criminality acts as a safeguard against detection. Such has been the experience of England. If then, as Mr Gakleton and Mr Stafford assure > us, our own elections are not always free from contamination, there is little sense in relying on means for its prevention which are notoriously futile, avd at the same time setting our faces against the only effectual means that exists — the Ballot.

The arguments brought forward by Mr Fitzherbert and others in opposition to this measure, are singularly weak and inconclusive. Indeed, the arguments cannot be read without a Rtrong feeling of surprise that men holding such a political position as they do could possibly have given them expression. It is a peculiar feature of this question that the arguments for and against it, on the merits, are very obvious and very easily summed up. No one expects to hear anything on the subject which he has not heard a thousand times already. But if it is impossible to offer anything novel or original with respect to its merits, it is of course possible to take us by surprise with ingenious reflections of a purely local character. In this respect, Mr Fitzherbert has at least succeeded. He first contends that the Ballot is inapplicable to New Zealand because no intimidation is practised at our elections ; then he urges that New Zealand has already suffered too much from, legislative experiments ; then he insinuates that the success of the Ballot has been questioned in America and Australia ; then that we are so politically pure as to need no change. We doubt whether the alleged purity of our elections has much foundation in fact. Popular opinion on the subject seems to tend quite the other way. It is very probable that intimidation on a large scale is not attempted ; because in this colony there is no large class of tenants depending on the favour of a landlord for a renewal of their leases, and no large class of artisans liable to dismissal at a moment's notice. But who is to assure us that intimidation on a small scale is not attempted? A largo proportion of our elcotore consists of men holding office, who are obviously open to intimidation, and who could not venture to run any rink if their votes were canvassed by persons in a position to injure them. But intimidation is not all that is to be feared ; as wo havo already said, there is bribory to be considered. On that point, Mr Fitziierdert says nothing, boyoml asserting ' tho purity of our elections and our representatives.' That our elections tiro not disgraced by gross corruption as in England, if undoubtedly truo ; but it can not bo said that corruption does not exist. Tho discussion with roferonco to tho Corrupt Practices Act — to which we havo alluded — is proof sufficient on that point If chore woro no corruption to bo apprehended., why was such an Act passed by our Legislature 1 The very oxistencc of th.o Act implies a general bolief that oor» rupt practices havo been displayed at our elections. No ono who has soon ft contested election oan doubt that corruption, in some form or othor, is actively going on during ovoiy such contest, It may bo in a very modified.

f -;«sgreii iii tut. ■-■■mii.i^i hi «» t i i ■' 'aMijf ' V tfqrni J ;,,i but wif^ it lambunts „ to r i ndthing? t|jjk>jr« T %fi£fea£> r af *p&fe*-IMJ" yß^^tjfiheto '"ak • nb< ;I Wasqti why\it should 'not be ;swepf;^tifc of the, way. ; IMr. .Stafford stated that / he^ had reliable, information' that .corrupt practices had obtained in some instances. ' ,As[ to the .danger , of experiment ' whicn",* Mr. Fitzhehbert „ dwells .upon, it 'may, be replied, that the Ballot is not an experiment. Jt id not an attempt to J 'gain by doubtful means some Utopian blessing. It is simply a piece of machinery, the construction and operation of which are just as familiar to us as those of a tea kettle. The question is, 'whether we are to avail ourselves of this machinery to cure some evib ,and prevent others; or whether we are to endure the evils, until we are forced to cry but for a , remedy. It is not true, as stated by Mr Fitzherbert, that it is a disputed point, in America and Australia, whether the Ballot lias been advantageous or not. There is no dispute about it — and there, never has been — in those countries since it was adopted by them. It is a subject of dispute in those countries only where it has not been adopted — England for instance. In the neighbouring colonies, it has so fully answered the purposes for which it was designed, that nothing 1 is ever heard about it except in the way of casual commendation. The machinery does its work. Nothing can be more absurd than to hold it responsible for such political scandals as those which have recently attracted attention in Victoria. The corruption exhibited by Mr C. E. Jones and other representatives, was the work of a few squatters who wished to secure their own interests j the Ballot had nothing to do with it whatever.