THE PELORUS GUARDIAN, AND MINERS' ADVOCATE TUESDAY, 5th FEBRUARY, 1907. DISFRANCHISEMENT!

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 18, Issue 11, 5 February 1907, Page 4

THE PELORUS GUARDIAN, AND MINERS' ADVOCATE TUESDAY, s th FEBRUARY, 1907. DISFRANCHISEMENT!

When the system of oue-man-one-vote w-is established in New Zealand it was thought by Liberal statesmen of Sir George Grey’s time that the people had nothing further to ask for so far as individual liberty was concerned. And however much opinions may differ as to the equi y of the system there can be no two opinions that absolute freedom of opinion and action at the ballot box is assured to those who desire to exercise them. But the broad question of representation in Parliament is ever dominated by parochial feelings and interests, and while the system of adult suffrage conforms to the requirements of both situations the question of envuonment is apt to completely shader the ideals set up on behalf of the system. A case in point is that of the Pelorus Bounds. At Christchurch, last month, the Boundaries Commissioners dealt w tb objections to their decisions regarding certain electoral boundaries. Amongst tue most prominent of these objections was one pr testing against the eastern portion of the Sounds being attached to the Nelson Electorate. The settlers on both sides of the Sounds recognise the absurdity of any elec‘oral connection with Nelson, but no protest was raised on the western shore—presumably because it was considered a protest would be ineffective. At the conclusion of the Commissioners’ deliberations the Sounds deputation were assured that if Starborough could be eliminated from the Wairau Electorate the eastern shore of the Pelorus Sound would be re-instated in the Wairau. Apparently this cannot be effected, for the following letter has come to hand from the Commissioners : Christchurch, :B.h January, 1907. Dear Sir, -After very careful considera'ion of the statements contained in your appeal, and the able arguments of the deputuion who attended in support thereof the South Idand Representation Commission, in ail the ci cumstances, regret exce dingly their inability to give effect to the views and wishes of the appellants. Thomas S. Weston, Chairman South Island Representation Commission. If this decision cannot be altered it means that the settlers in the Bound will be disfranchised. There is no alternative. And we have no hesitation in saying that a glaring and inexcusable blunder has been made by the Commissioners. Probably there is not in the colony an instance where the question of population should have been 00 small a consideration as in this case, Geographically (especially),

and from the point of view of community of irrerest, the Sounds are dissevered from Nelson, but because the Commissioners have no knowledge of local conditions, and only fix their boundaries on the result of the census, one thousand and ninety-eight people are t» ba electorally ostracised. It is an injustice that should not be toler ated. The Commissioners will claim that their instructions w re toaljust the boundaries according to population ; but when these instructions conflict with fairness and common sense nothing can warrant strict adherence to them. Protest against the Commissioners' decisions is not confined to the Sounds, for, in addition to the instances mentioned by us in a previous article, the following extract will show that the feeling is strong in another portion of the colonyln the course of reference to the decision of the Representation Commission in regard to wiping out Waikouaiti as an Electorate, MrD. Reid, junr., M.H R., said at Waikouaiti that if the population was to be the basis on which r. prefcsntatiou was to be given why did the Commissioners depart from that ? If 38 members were require 1 to adequately represent the South Island before the census was taken, which showed that there had been an actual increase in population, why should 35 members be sufficient to represent the South Island now ? The idea of re-parcelling out Electorates every five years, while theoretically very just, worked out in practice very unjustly. It was a great injustice to those districts that were near the bound iry of an Electorate, because they did not know in which Electorate they would located. He thought that if electoral boundaries were readjusted every twelve years it would be preferable.