The Akaroa Mail. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 128, 9 October 1877, Page 2

The Akaroa Mail. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9.

A disqualification epidemic appears to pervade the Parliamentary atmosphere. The first case that occurred was that of Mr Kennedy, who, it was averred, was a contractor, and therefore disqualified from holding a seat in Parliament. This case was referred to the disqualification committee, who found that Mr Kennedy was a contractor, but they referred the case to the Solicitor-General, for his opinion, whether the entering into a contract by a member, after lie was a member, disqualified him. Then came the cases of the Hon. J. T. Peacock, and Mr Fisher, who were alleged to be disqualified, because, as members of the Waimakariri Board, they had taken pay from the Government. The Committee appointed, by the Upper House, held that Mr Peacock was disqualified, whilst the Lowe.- House Committee arrived at a total'; - different conclusion, with regard to Jlr Fisher. A special Act was, however,-passed, to set at rest all doubts as to tl.o qualification of those two Next came the case of Mr Larnach, brought forward by the Honorable the Premier, and, singularly enough, at the very time when Mr Larnach Avas engaged in endeavouring to carry through the House a vote of censure on the Government, for their conduct with reference to the \Vaka Maori. The history of this case is somewhat singular. It appears that during last session, Mr A. J. Burns, an Otago member, discovered that the firm of Guthrie and Larnach had supplied 11,000 sleepers to the Government for railway purposes. He did not himself .bring the matter before the House, because there Wiis a law suit pending* between himself and a company, of which Mr Larnach was manager, biit he mentioned the matter to Mcsrs Macandrew and Stout. Those gentlemen seem to have declined to be made cats-paws of, and there the matter rested for the time. This session Mr Burns, doubtless influenced by the purest patriotism, laid the affair before Major Atkinson, who forthwith brought it before the House. During the discussion that ensued, it came out that Mr Stout did mention the matter to Mr Larnach, who said that he knew nothing about it, and this is very probable, inasmuch as the member for Akaroa, Mr Montgomery, some time since, had to resign his seat, and seek re-election at the hands of his constituents, because his manager had, unknown to him, sold certain articles to the Government. After Mr Larnach's case, there followed a whole crop of disqualification charges. The seats of the Hon. F. Whiftaker, Messrs. Rees, Reynolds, Bastings, Lusk, Burns, and Trovers are said to be all liable to be impugned, and Heaven only knows where this disqualification mania will end. A grave legal question arises out of this —does a single transaction of sale to the Government constitute a contract within the meaning of the Act ? It is one upon which we shall not presume to offer an opinion, and it is one

which will not be satisfactorily settled, except by a decision of higher law courts, and it would be well that such a decision should be taken. Defective qualifications can, we are aware, be cured by the passing of special doubts Acts, but that is a most unsatisfactory method of settling the matter, it only disposes of the question for the present, leaving it liable to present itself on a future occasion with renewed virulence and force. Two methods appear to us to be open for effectually disposing of the difficulty ; the one is by obtaining, as we suggested, the decibion of the higher law courts, and the other is to pass an Act specifically defining what constitutes a contract, and whether the acceptance of such contract whilst a person is a member of Parliament disqualifies him. A still graver aspect of the matter remains to be noticed. We greatly fear, that in bringing these disqualification charges, some have been'influenced more by personal animus than by a desire to preserve the purity of Parliament from the taint of Crown influence, by advantages to be derived from contracts. The tv quoque style of retort which has shown itself so prominently in this disqualification question is deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as it indictates a low tone of political morality which exists, where extensive demoralization prevails. That such demoralization does exist in the House of Representatives, the events of the past few days have shown too plainly, and the only cure for it is, that the basis of representation should be immediately re-adjusted, and then, that an appeal should be made to the people.