The Star. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22,. 1668.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 112, 22 September 1868, Page 2

The Star. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, . 1668.

Ik i* impossible, after carefully aud ditfJMis&ioufttoiy reading the report of fhe committee of Councillors appointed ♦q inquire into the late Borough electjyu, and the opinion of Dr Foster, to c?ine to tiny other conclusion than this — *»tmt tht: wlioie a (fair ia in a hopeless eau id!f>. It will be advisable to con*jf.f:r the two documents we have refifi'yd to nepa lately. The comiuittee inform us that they BSfid every means to ascertain the li&mea ot all ihw burgesses whose votes wvre cii»ai!i/-vp.d Altogether, they discovered jf/taw, and it turned out, when these eus<-s were investigated, Smfe tho names of eight burgesses were ectfitted from the roll in error. It sobtnti to ut» euperiluous iv the commitfoo to add that they "have no ground whatever for supposing them to have ac/s.eu fro.m any other cause. 1 ' We aafc not awuro Unit anyone lias ventured, to accuse those who are resporwiblo in tho matter with wilful oiaisaions. The complaint has been, aii along, that certain burgesses were disqualified through no fault of their , own, that thoy were disqualified by the ••-SSgiigenco of an olficer who is paid to -do certain work, and that tho official daplaratiou on the polling day does not Eupi'e.sout the real voice of those who sro or ought to be qualified to vote. The committee first declares that JttLor» thnu half the names submitted 4[i} them were omitted from the roll iff. error. By whose error? We are iiok told, but from the fact that the 'Jbwn Clerk is mninly responsible iv fciio mat her wo <; .:t . one to no other €«siclU3io;i Uv.m ''iav the disfrauchisem«nt of certain electors must be laid aft. Kia door. The committee say that ftJiey CHunot excuse the inaccuracies, &tij» are of opinion that no " undue nGf^igence " can be attributed. AttriBrit'^d to whom ? Homily, for the sake o£ jxjace, and iv tha interests of ail cosricerned, it would be better if these •ouuciilorß would cay at once, without any reservation whatever, who has 6eeii "in error," and to whom no' . <p n«due negligence" can be attributed. ! &ad what is meant by "undue" negligence ? Is it something very different from the simple article? . "When the committee speak of " undue" negligence do they wish us to believe that thers ia a certain amount of negligence inevitable aud due, as ifc were, from the Town Clerk ? If the omission of eight out of fifteen names is not

" undue negligence," how would the committee characterise the omission of thirteen out of fifteen ? When do they draw the line? Where does " undue negligence " end ? At ten names out of fifteen ; at eleven ; at twelve ? There lias been " error," there has been "negligence" on the part of some one whom the committee of Councillors refrain from naming — why, we cannot say — and for the shortcomings of this unnamed person, who has been guilty of error and negligence, the committee try to find all the excuses they can. Not one word of censure, not a syllable of warning. It' an officer of the Borough Council, therefore, commits errors and is guilty of negligence without receiving a reprimand, it is fair to infer that graver faults may be committed with comparative impunity. " The omissions," says the committee, " are much to be regretted," and this is all the satisfaction the disfranchised burgesses are likely to get. Not quite, for the committee goes on to remark — " but fortunately if all the lost votes had been polled for any one of the unsuccessful candidates, it would not have aftected the result of the election." Why " fortunately ?" Whose good fortune is it that is here meant ? The good fortune of the Council, or of the one candidate more immediately concerned, or of the electors? Or is it enly a loose sort of way of saying that the blander is not so big as it might hav® been ? But this part of the report suggests a rather important question. Suppose the number of votes disallowed had been equal to or more than the number of votes separating Mr Angus from Mr Tompkius, what; then ? Would the election have been illegal ? And 13 it not illegal as it is ? We should really like to have auj answer to these questions. Altogether, we are obliged to say — and we do it with the utmost reluctauce — that the report is decidedly unsatisfactory. We come now to Dr. Foster's opinion. First of all, he tells us that he has "no doubt whatever that the proper coutho has been pursued." This is very satisfactory indeed, and so is the following sentence — " the roll is clearly to be made uuder the 68th section, and not under the 52nd." We are on fina ground so far. The learned counsel has " no doubt whatever," and he declares distinctly that the roll is to be made out according to a certain section of the Acb. But the next sentence lands us in a very slough of doubt ; for we are very plainly told that it was impossible to comply with the 68th section. That is, we arrive at the following delightful position : — 1. The proper course was pursued. 2. Ths 6Sth section lays down the proper course. 3. It is impossible to comply with tho 68th section. What deduction nm»i, we draw? The learned Doctor tells us, almost in tlnsame breath, that the proper coutve wus pursued and that it was itnpossibit; t<> pursue the proper course. The bur geases of '.Chrintchurch nuijht to b<> proud of their Mayor, Borough Councillors, Town Cleric, and Legal Adviser These gentlemen, it seems, pursued aj proper c nine even when it wus impos- | sible to do so. Bravo ! But the subject is by no means exhausted.