The Westport Times. TUESDAY, MAY 31, 1870.

Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 665, 31 May 1870, Page 2

The Westport Times. TUESDAY, MAY 31, 1870.

Complaints have been expressed by many, whose names have appeared as nhjfic.ted to on ttie .Last oi voters, tnat no opportunity has been offered tbem to remedy any informality or deficiency in tbeir claim. The fact that no notification had been furnished to the parties interepted, as to the mode in which they should obtain a remedy, and also that the Eevising Officer should have selected a most unsuitable spot for completing the revision of the list, are certainly reasonable grounds for dissatisfaction. The majority of the claimants, whose names appeared in the list of objections, would, had the opportunity been offered them, have been enabled to supply, to the satisfaction of the Eevising Officer, any details omitted or matter insufficiently described, before he had completed the revision of the List of Voters. The omission of a christian name, or j place of abode, or nature of the qualification, or insufficient description of the qualification, are matters admitting of easy redress, had the parties been acquainted with the course it would be neces-ary to take in order to supply the remedy. It appears that Mr Lee, the Eevising Officer, held his Court, for hearing claims and completing the list of voters for "Westland North, at Cobden on the 23rd instant. With very few exceptions the parties, interested in the proceedings of the Court, were resident in the districts of Westport and Charleston, and they had neither the opportunity of knowing the time nor place at which they might meet the objection, and, even if they had, it is very certain that few, if any, would have taken the trouble and expense to visit Cobden in order to rectify any deficiency. Here we have between one and two hundred persons disfranchised, simply, because a revising officer shirks the performance of his duty. To suit his convenience, and to save a little time and trouble, it is decided to hold a Court in the most remote corner of the district—no notification having been made of his intention to do so—and practically every precaution having been omitted that would furnish an opportunity to those, who are now disfranchised, to obtain their electoral privileges. Doubtless many whose names have been expunged had left the district or no longer possessed the necessary qualifications; to them it certainly makes no difference when or where Mr Lee held his Court; and even if the Registration Officer had limited his objections to those whose claim had been incorrectly or informally laid, the sufferers would then have themselves alone to blame for losing their vote ; but others have been objected to through no informality or fault of theirs. Two instances of the latter have come under our knowledge, onethat occurred last year, and another on the occasion of the present revision of the roll. In the first named case, Eafferty, a freeholder, was expunged from the list as having left the district, though his absence was but

temporary; in a few days he returned, but had no opportunity of furnishing the [Revising Officer with proof of the validity of his claim. On this present occasion also a claimant has been objected to on the ground of not being a British, subject, the party at the same time holding a letter of naturalisation. These are but two instances from among many of a similar character; and we cannot but think that the Government should provide a Eevising Officer for this district, who would undertake to perform the duty in a manner most conducive to the the public interest. It would appear scarcely credible that a Court of Hevision should have been held at Cobden, and no notification, on the part of the officer of his intention to hold the same, have been published in the District of Westland North. The first intimation we have had upon the matter has been supplied through the columns of the Hokitika papers, and that, as regards "Westport and Charleston, cannot be construed into a proper notification to the public. In addition therefore to the grievance that Cobden should have been selected for holding, the Court, there is also the fact that it was decided, whether intentionally or otherwise makes but little difference, that thelargenumber, whose claim to be placed on the Electoral Eoll had been objected to, should not even have the opportunity, if they cared to exercise it, of rectifying any clerical error or omission that constituted the invalidity of their claim.