The Star. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1868.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 104, 12 September 1868, Page 2

The Star. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1868.

It ia to be regretted that a considerable number of men entitled to vote at the recent election of Borough Councillors iv Christchurch —so far as having paid their rates is concerned — should have found themselves disfranchised by not being on the Burgess Roll. ~\Ve are not prepared to say whether this actually affected the election, but we cannot shut our eyes to indisputable facts which have been brought under our notice, or set aside the natural and reasonable dissatisfaction which is felt by several citizens. It would be well, perhaps, that a full explanation should be given. At the close of the election, and in answer to a question by a ratepayer, the Mayor is reported to have said that "he could not tell the exact cause, but it must have been some mistake on the part of the Clerk." Now, it is hardly necessary to point out that this is a very cavalier and altogether unsatisfactory way of dealing with such a grave question. If the Mayor was unprepared, on the spur of the moment, to answer such a question, he ought to have said so, and to have promised that the matter should be aiffced to the bottom. But, we contend that he ought to have been prepared, then and there, to give a full explanation. He could hardly fail to be aware that several ratepayers had been unable to vote during tbe day, the legal adviser of the Council was at hand, the officer more immediately responsible was also in attendance. The Mayor's answer, therefore, is particularly unsatisfactory. It will be noticed that the Mayor throws the blame on the Town Clerk — "it must have been some mistake on the part of the Clerk." We have no hesitation in saying that, if such is really the case, the Clerk deserves to be censured. And, if he 'is not to blame, he has just ground of complaint against the Mayor for telling tho ratepayers that several of their number had been disfranchised by neglect on his part. We repeat, that a full explanation is due both to the ratepayers and to the Town Clerk. If the latter was really the cause of the disfran chisement complained of, the former ought to have some guarautee that similar mistakes will not occur again ; if the Town Clerk is blameless, it is due to him that tbe ratepayers should be convinced of this. We do not, of cours6, vouch for the accuracy of what may be a mere assertion, but it is as well to add that the Burgess Roll is said to have been altered and amended — either iv the way of additions or withdrawals — almost up to the day of election. We mention this chiefly to show that the dissatisfaction is not confined to one point only, and that there ia sufficient ground for insisting on a full answer to the question which has been asked — why were certain names not on the Burgess Roll ? It will probably be found that at least some of the omissions can be accounted for satisfactorily enough, and that no blame whatever attaches to the Town Clerk. In the meantime, the public are not satisfied, and they have reason on their side.

It wouldbe surprising indeed if thenewa received from the North, day by day, did not induce even the most indiiferent to think, and to ask whither we are drifting. At this moment there cannot be fewer than 1000 men under arms —

for what ? For the purpose of asserting our right to certain pieces of land which the Maoris say they will fight for to the death ; for the purpose of avenging the injury done to a few isolated settlers, who, knowingly, have chosen to place themselves in a position of danger ; for the purpose of maintaining a sentimental theory which we cannot afford to indulge in. And we are beaten by a mere handful of Maoris, beaten at all points, beaten in every way, almost disgraced ! We turn to our representatives in Parliament assembled, and the only answer we get is, more money. Mr Stafford tells us that he will deal with this Native question as wisely, as cautiously, as economically aa he can, but he does not tell us how much it will cost. He asks that we should leave everything to his judgment and discretion, assuring us that the bill of costs will be as moderate as he can possibly make it. But this is no consolation. We want to know distinctly what is to be done, in order that we may have an opportunity of saying whether we approve of it or not, and we want to know, within a few pounds, how much it will cost, that we may be in a position to consider whether we can afford to pay ; and we want, moreover, to satisfy ourselves whether we ought to pay. Mr Stafford and his colleagues are merely trifling with us ; they are absolutely refusing to the taxpayers that which has always been held to be their most valued right — the power of the purse. For that is really what their conduct on this Native question amounts to. Mr Fox tells us, on the other hand, what he ia going to do, Jiorv he proposes to do it, and the amount of money he requires. He makes, in fact, a clean breast of it. We are justified in assuming that those of our representatives who act with Mr Fox have agreed to his proposals, aud that those who vote with Mr Stafford are content to incur, on our beJtalf, an indefinite liability. The question is, do these men represent our opinions ? Are we, the people of this province, content to make ourselves responsible for the amount of Mr Stafford's unknown war bill ? Are we prepared to endorse Mr Fox's draft for £425,000, with contingencies ? If not, we are simply playing the part of simpletons in remaining silent. The remedy, or at least the power of protost, is in our own bauds. If we do not use it, if we do not make our voice unraistakeably heard in one way or another, we deserve to pay every farthing that may be dragged from us, aad to be loaded with the additional taxation which must eventually follow. The future of this colony, the future of every man, woman, and child in New Zealand depends upon the Native question — there caunot be the shadow of a doubt on this point, and we entreat the public to act without delay. Let them send up to Wellington their deliberate and determined opinion in such a way as to leave no doubt on the minds of their representatives. The foregoing considerations lead us naturally to another, and an equally serious question. By whom are we represented in the G-eneral Assembly ? What are they ? What are their interests ? Do they feel, in an equal degree, the burden which this frightful scourge of war has imposed, and threatens to impose, on our labourers, tradesmen, merchants, and agriculturists ? We answer without hesitation, though we do it reluctantly, that three-fourths of our representatives in the General Assembly do not feel the terrible burdou of taxation in anything like the same degree as do our labourers, tradesmen, merchants, and agriculturists. We disclaim any idea of attempting to set class against clasa. We ask that our words may be regarded as the expression of an earnest conviction, as the performance of that which we believe to be our duty. If war is inevitable, if the majority of our representatives in the Assembly are prepared to justify their votes, they will not object when we suggest that further taxation should take the shape of an export duty upon wool. A duty, say of 20s per bale, would bring in about £30,000 a-year, and would go aome way towards an equalization of the burdens imposed upon us by the action of our representatives. These are times when plain speaking is the positive duly of the journalist ; when

the people owe it to themselves to consider which ia to be preferred — pasturage rents or a large influx of taxpaying colonists.