DISFRANCHISEMENT

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 4, Issue 137, 4 August 1941, Page 5

DISFRANCHISEMENT

DECISION OF FARMERS' UNION DISAPPOINTMENT EXPRESSED "There were farmers who were astonished at the suggestion. They considered it an unheard' of suggestion that a man' who did not pay his rates should stif.l l have a vote. If he didn't pay his rates then he shouldn't have the right to vote was their opinion," stated Mr R. W. Strugnell, chairman of the Farmers' Union meeting held at Edgecumbe on Thursday, when, reporting 1 on the Dominion) Executive meeting-. "But the same men did not} appear effected when the matter of State House occupiers having 1 a vote was discussed 1 ." Mr Strugnell added tliat the remit had been passed finally with the alteration that ratepayers who have defaulted only one year be allowed to vote. He added that he was disappointed that after a long struggle find when the Govcrnemnt was considering making the amendment the Counties' Association should turn the suggestion down and it should have had the opposition it did. of some members of the Dominion executive. Agreed With Decision Mr Moffatt was of the opinion that the Union should be satisfied with the remit as it was carried. He stated that if a man was given twelve months grace and then failed to pay he should be disfranchised. He continued that in the past twenty years there had been a falling away of business morals and he would not like to bring about the position V/here there would be as many scroungers in the farming community as in other communities he could name. The chairman pointed out that dis franchisement as the law stood could be very unfair. A man with hvo farms had leased one on which the leasee had not met the rates and he had to after some years take the land back. He, having done so. Pound he could not vote although Hie rates owing on the land he l\ad occupied had always been paid.