AND GOLDFIEIOS REPORTER UNO ADVERTISER. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1891. • " MEASURES, NOT MEN."

Tuapeka Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1818, 5 August 1891, Page 2

AND GOLDFIEIOS REPORTER UNO ADVERTISER. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1891. • " MEASURES, NOT MEN."

The Ministry are evidently determined, if only time and the fortunes of war permit, that nothing shall escape the impress of their folly. The " one-man-one-vote " principle is now recognised as an essential element iv our system of representative Government. With this wo heartily agree, recognising that, where electoral rights are not even in the remotest degree founded on the possession of property, property should be allowed no control, no ascendancy or special privileges in the exercise of those rights. The principle is, in truth, the very essence of democratic government. But where is the analogy between our existing systems of Parliamentary and County governments? The principle involved in the first owns no allegiance to property or possessions of any kind whatsoever; whereas in the second — in the case of County government — it is exclusively founded on the ownership ofproperty and on the ability of the individual to contribute directly towards the maintenance of the Government in the representation of which he is allowed a voice in proportion to his contributions. Where, we may again ask, is the analogy between this and our system of Parliamentary government? And yet the Ministry, either through ignorance and misunderstanding of the local government system, or in the unbridled license of their levelling-down policy, have determined, by the introduction of the one-man-one-vote principle, to disorganise and destroy the whole system of County government. We publish, in another column a synopsis of the Bill now before the House, from which it will be seen that in future the owner of a tumble-down tenement or a shanty or a quarter-acre section shall exercise the same right in controlling the expenditure of county revenue and electing its representatives as the owner of a thousand or fifty thousand acres. Now, as long as property is made the basis of qualification for a vote, every intelligent, fair-minded man, no matter what his status may be, must admit that the introduction of the one-man-one-vote principle is not only inconsistent and illogical, but that it would besides be a flagrant injustice, and would result in the complete break-down of the system. Naturally large property-owners, on whom the burden of county taxation falls, are averse to financial recklessness and extravagance of allkinds,clearly realising that on them and on them alone will ultimately fall the responsibility of paying for these indiscretions. But how does it go with the very small owner — with the owner of a half-acre or quarter-acre section? Is he troubled with any such responsibilities ? Is he interested in seeing that the County Council should refrain from excessive borrowing, or that it should be watchful of its expenditure and live within its income? Does he even realise or feel clearly his responsibilities in such matters ? Why should he ? He will be suns to- benefit by loan expenditure distributed with a lavish hand by the labour that it employs; but there is nothing to be got where the brake is held with a firm hand and the expenditure is watched with a searching, vigilant eye. This is necessarily the case now ; but we fear this vigilance and this firmness will no longer hold sway if once the one-man-one-vote principle is permitted to control the machinery of County government. Under such a system of voting, there is nothing whatever to prevent people holding next to no stake in a district forcing a loan on substantial property owners — on the settlers who will afterwards be looked to for its repayment. This surely is contrary to every principle of reason and equity. It simply proposes to place in the hands of irresponsible men a weapon by which they may strike at and destroy the most solid and valuable safeguard of local government. Fancy the state of confusion that the affairs of a mining company could be brought by the admission of such a system of voting. Or imagine what would happen were it extended to the governing bodies of cities and towns.. And no doubt it will be, should the Bill in. its present state be permitted to go through the House. But this we hardly think likely, as it received the most determined opposition from both sides of the House, and is likely to undergo considerable change in committee.