The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas, et Prevalebit. SATURDAY, JUNE 3, 1882. “Purging the Roll.”

Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 653, 3 June 1882, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas, et Prevalebit. SATURDAY, JUNE 3, 1882. “Purging the Roll.”

TOWN EDITION. [lssued at 4.40 p. m. j

When some weeks ago, Mr Joseph Ivess, with a burst of virtuous indignation which really almost seemed genuine, it was so well done, took in hand the task of “ purging ” the Electoral Roll lor Wakanui, and succeeded in getting the names of a few individuals removed from it, he reckoned without his host. He entirely overlooked the fact that in “setting the machinery of the law in motion,” to accomplish the object which he so earnestly desired to attain, that the legal machinery once set-a-going might not stop exactly where he wanted it to, and that, as a consequence, the roll might be “ purged ” even a little more effectually than he—thorough-going reformer that he is—cared about. Such, sad to relate, has been the case. Mr S. E. Poyntz, following the excellent example set him by Mr Ivess, yesterday caused a number of persons to appear at the Resident Magistrate’s Court to show cause why their names should not be struck off the roll, with the result that about a score of “Pats” and “ Micks,” and “ Dans ” were deprived of the power of voting at the coming election. Had time allowed a considerably larger number of unqualified persons would have found themselves disfranchised ere this, for something like 100 or 150 names still remain on the Wakanui roll that have no more business there than a wasp in a beehive. Mr Ivess has expressed himself so warmly on this question of “ roll stuffing ” and has evinced such lively satisfaction at getting some of the stuffing removed that he will doubtless rejoice at the success of Mr Poyntz’s efforts in the same direction. But in endeavoring to free the roll from the names of persons improperly retained upon it, Mr Ivess has shown, what appears on the face of it, just a little inconsistency. In a sub-leader appearing in the columns of the Mail, on the 27th ult., Mr Ivess complains of the State being saddled with the expense' of purging the roll, and takes credit to himself for not resorting to such aid in his attempts to prevent unqualified persons from recording their votes. And. yer, out a very snuu time ucroic iiun article was penned, Mr Ivess himself lodged with’ the Registrar the names of about a score of persons to whom he objected. Having taken this preliminary step, however, Mr Ivess, strange to say, but probably for reasons best known to himself, failed to follow it up, and the cases were consequently not proceeded with. To make this matter perfectly plain to such of our readers as may not be conversant with the method of procedure in cases of objections to electoral rolls, we may explain that such objections may be given effect to in two ways. Firstly, by logdment at a Resident Magistrate’s Court, and, secondly, by lodgment with the Electoral Registrar. The first course entails the deposit of Lr with each objection lodged, which sum is forfeited in the event cf such objection not being sustained ; whereas tire second—the lodging of the objection with the Registrar—costs nothing. Mr Ivess’s views on “ State aid ” in such cases, have evidently, like some of his other views, undergone considerable modification. He probably entirely concurs with the sarcastic remark which fell from Mr Garrick at the Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday, that everything is fair in love, war—and politics.