RATEPAYERS' MEETING.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 121, 2 October 1868, Page 2

RATEPAYERS' MEETING.

A public meeting was held in the Town Hall last evening, for the purpose of considering the desirability of dividing the shilling rate into two payments, and matters in connection with the recent election of City Councillors. There were very few persons in attendance at the time when the proceedings were commenced, but the Hall was crowded at a later stage. The Mayor of Christchurch occupied the chair. Mr Thompkins was received with loud applause, lie said that if he had been defeated at the recent .election through any want of energy on his own part or want of support ou the part of the electors, he would have felt bound and perfectly aatisfh-d to submit to it, but as he lost the seat in consequence of the negligence of a public officer, he considered that he had a right to make his complaint at a public meeting. (Hear, hear.) At the recent election a good mauy persons produced their receipts for the p.iyment of their rates, bui were not allowed to record their votes. On the 'morning following, he went to the Clerk's office to ask for an explanation, lie thought that Mr Gordon was bound to give this explanation, and if he had done so, he (vir Thompkins) would have oeen satisfied. Mr Gordon told him to write to the City Council about the matter, hut he (Mr Thompkins) said that they had nothing

to do with it ; thnt he (Mr Gordon) was paid for doing the work. " On "the Saturday after the election, he (Mr Thompkins) got a requisition signed and left it at the Mayor's office in the afternoon of the same day. On Monday, a committee was appointed by the Council to enquire into and report upon the matter, and on being requested to do so, he agreed to defer the .holding ©f a public meeting until the report had teen brought up. On the following Monday, the Mayor wrote to him, asking him to attend the meeting of the Council that evening, which he did and he heard the report read. He was very much surprised at this report. It s.ated that thirteen more votes might have been given than were polled, but it also stated that if the thirteen votes could have been given to an unsuccessful candidate, the election would have in no way been affected. But he contended that if the thirteen votes had been given to him — and he rather thought they would have been — he would have tied Mr Angus, and tken the casting vote of the Mayor would have decided the election. He had" indisputable evidence in his possession that there were 23 persons who had the right to vote if they had been allowed. (Applause ) The next portion of the Committee's report was one wh'ch he could not understand. He thought that for the credit of that JCommittee, and more especially for that of the Chairman of it, they ought to have attended on the platform, and told the meeting what they meant by "no undue negligence." He thought they ought to tell the ratepayers where undue negligence stops and where it begins. (Applasse.) If tbe Town Clerk could not make up a roll of 700 names without making as many mistakes as there were blackberries in springtime, it was high time that somebody else should be got to do the work. He had read the Municipal Act as well as he had been able to understand it. He read that no person whatever — no matter what his property was or the amount of rates which he paid — had a right to give more than five votes ; but he thought it was very clear that at the recent election, one individual gave seven votes. According to his reading of the Act. when the roll was made up and signed, it was then to be laid on the Council table, and that no namei were to be inserted or taken out afterwards. But he thought instances would be found in which the Act had been contravened in this way, and that a name was actually put upon the roll after it 'was laid on the Council table. To shew the meeting tho negligent manner in which the roll had been made up and kept, he could bring forward evidence of a man giving his vote who had not paid his rates for three years past. (" Bravo " and applause.) He had pretty good reason for believing that a man voted whose name was never on the roll. If the Council wanted this information, it would be open to theni at any moment. He begged leave to move — " That in the opinion of this meeting Mr Gordon is deserving of censure for the negligent manner in which the burgess roll has been made up." (Loud applause.) Mr David Narin seconded the resolution. At the same time he thought that the Mayor and Councillors were just as much to blame na Mr Gordon. The Chairman inquired if , anyone desired to address the meeting. He wished the meeting to understand clearly that the very fullest latitude would be allowed for the discussion of the subject. Dr Foster addressed the meeting in defence of Mr Gordon, and expressed a hope that the meeting, before passing judgment, would hear both sides of the question. He was not present at the beginning of Mr Thompkins' address, but he did not a v ree with that portion of it which he had listened to, although he frankly acknowledged that Mr Thompkins had proved himself as bei'ig worthy to succeed in his candidature. Mr Thompkins said that Mr Gordon was deserving of their censure ; aud let the Meeting enquire what he had done and what were the reasons why Mr Thompkins thought that Mr Gordon was deserving of misure. He told the meeting that there was a gentleman who gay« seven votes, whereas he ought to have given only five. Re (Dr Fos'er) was present at tho Council Chamber during the whole day on which the poll was taken, and he recollected that a claim to give seven votes did arise, and he recollected advising that five only could be given, aud this was the number which wa« taken. Therefore, he beliroed that Mr Thompkins was in error. Mippoaing it were true that the Mayor, acting under his advice, had allowed a person to give two votes more than the Act permitted, was Mr Gordon the party to be censured ? Was he to be blamed ? He attended the meeting in defence of an absent friend, not in consequence of any communication which he had receive;! from Mr Gordon ; and whether the meeting agreed with him (Dr Foster) or not, he thought they would hpar one who came to defend an absent friend from attack. Mr Gordon had been placed in a position of considerable difficulty, and mistakes bad occurred at this election, whioh would not occur again. It waa almost impossible to avoid ...i-takea. A new Act came into operation, and an old roll wa* required to be made into a new one. They wi-re aware of the number of ratepayers in Christchurch, and out of these thirteen errors only had occurred at the commencement of a new system. The Council advertised for objections, and these ought to have bi'en made at the proper time. If Mr Thompkins was in possession of facts to bear out what he had stated, he ought to have placed them before the committee. If so, their report would have been the foundation for leg il proceedings, and Mr Thompkins would have had his remedy. The Council must then have referred the question to the Attorney-General to say whether the election was valid or not. And if the Attorney-Gene-ral sail, that he could not advise the Council to proceed, but that they must have a new election, then perhaps Mr Thompkinß would

have enjoyed the seat which he had proved himself worthy to enjoy. Mr John Hart asked Dr Foster, if he had struck out any names from the roll ? Dr Foster replied that not one had been struck out. Mr Thompkins said he bad furnished the committee with six namea sufficient to establish negligence on the part of ' Mr Gordon. Lie could have furnished more if required to do so. Did Dr Foster hold himself responsible for Mr Gordon's errors in omitting the names from the roll. Dr Foster replied in the negative. Mr Nairn asked whether it was true or nofc that Dr Foster and the Mayor tore up the voting paper of a man who hai produced his receipt forthe rates, and wouldjnot allow him to vote. Dr Foster said that he didn't tear up anybody's vo'iug paper, or see it torn up by anybody else. He advised all through that no one could vote whose name was not on the roll, for if such a thing had been allowed, the election would have been invalid. Mr Wynn Williams said that he had taken no part in the requisition r he considered it his duty to sign a requisition for a public meeting when asked to do so. After the expression of opinion which the meeting had put forth, he believed that the best course to adopt was to allow Mr Gordon to be dealt with by those who in fact employed him. He was prepare 1 to aduiit that Mr Gordon had had great difficulties to contend with. But whether he had or had not, it was no satisfaction to himself, or to the other ratepayers of the city to be told that their remedy was to proceed against the Town Clerk to recover a penalty. No one wished to proceed against the Town Clerk, and no remedy wa9 left- to the ratepayers, because the members could not be called upon to shew cause why they should hold their seats In this respect the Act was defective. It was defective inasmuch aB it deprived the people of all power over elections, but he knew the brain from which it emanated. He hoped Mr Thompkins would consent to withdraw his motion. If not, he would propose the folio wing amendment :— •*" That in the opinion of this meeting it is desirable that the Municipal Corporations Act, 1867, should be amended as to the mode of elections of councillors." Mr J. G. Hawkes seconded the amendment. He thought that great injustice had been done by the disfranchisement of a large number of electors ; but he thought, like Mr Williams, that it was more the fault of the system than that of Mr Gordon. Although the City Council had discharged its duties for the last four years pretty satisfactorily, he could not help thinking that they inclined to ride the huh horse sometimes, and that enough consideration was not paid to the humbler individuals of the community. (Applause.) He hoped the meeting would consent to pass the amendment. Mr Thompkins said that he had caused the present meeting to be called, because he thought the ratepayers ware entii led to express their opinion on the suhject. It seemed, on reference to the roll, that he had been misled with regard to one or two statement, which he had made. He had not had an opportunity of seeing the roll bofore, and he made the statements helieving that they were right. He was glad to find that he wns wrong. This, however, did not do away with the fact of a number of ratepayers' nsmes being off the roll. The motion was withdrawn, and Mr Williams' amendment put as a substantive motion. Mr Oswald asked what wa9 the number of names found by the committee to be omitted, on examining the roll. The Mayor replied that there were eight names found to be omitted, representing twelve votes. Mr Nottidge said he would have been sorry if the meeting had passed a vote of censure on Mr Gordon, who had given satisfaction for, he helieved, a period of seven j years. It was an unfortunate thiog that I errors had arisen, but he did not believe they would recur. He agreed with Mr Williams that it was necessary to amend the Act. Mr Cooper considered more blame was to be attached to the father of the Act thnn to Mr Gordon *, and that a pood deal of blame attached to Dr Foster. He thought the list required amendment, and that the city should be divided into five wards, with as little delay as possible. At the present time, the people of 'he Northern part of the city found it impossible to secure thi election of anyone whom they nominated. Mr Wynn Williams said the meeting had also been called to considor the desirability of dividing the shilling rate recently levied, into two payments, but he had been informed that it was impossible to do so. This rate is to be paid before the 3 1st December, and there wa9 no knowing but that the Council would levy another at the beginning of the year, so that to all intentH and purposes the rate would be a two shilling one. £700 or £800 had been collected, and this was one very material reason why it was practicnlly impossible to divide the rate into two payments The meeting might take this opportunity of impressing upon the Council to avoid levying another rate before this time twelvemonth. He feared that in the course of a few mouths the people of Canterbury would have something more to pay than a one-shilling rate. He wished to remind those present of the public meeting which was to be held next evening. He trusted that there would bea large attendance, and that the people of Canterbury would express its unanimous opinion respecting the present very serious aspect of affairs. It was necessary that the people should make known their views iv the strongest possible manner to those who, going up to the General Assembly, appeared to abandon the true interests of this part of the colony at such a critical period as the present. (Cheers.) The Mayor put Mr Williams' substantive

motion, and declared it to be carried unanimously. • A vote of thanks to the Chairman terminated the proceedings.