The Evening Star SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1870.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2125, 26 February 1870, Page 2

The Evening Star SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1870.

Editors of newspapers are not exempt from the common lot, and occasionally, notwithstanding every care to avoid them, fall into mistakes. Not havingbeen in Otago during the earlier years of its history, and never having even heard of some of the doings in bygone days, we appear to have given its people credit for a degree of fairness and mutual tolerance to which they were not then entitled. Notonemerely, but several greeted us on Wednesday morning with—- “ Did not you know that, once before, “ the names of the electors who voted “ so and so were published ?■ Did not “ you know that, by paying for it, any “ elector could not only see the poll-book “ after an election, but have a list of “ those who voted and the manner in “ which they voted 1” Some even went so far as to affirm that express provision was made by some New Zealand Act that such information should be' given when required, on payment of certain fees. On a careful search, however, no such provision could be found in any of the Acts to which we had access, although after the extraordinary disclosures elicited in the course of our enquiry, we are quite prepared to imagine some obscure Act may have been smuggled through Parliament of the existence of which many have confident recollections, although they are unable to bring it to light. But whether such an Act, containing so objectionable a provision, ever did find its way through both Houses, and receive the Governor’s assent or not, certain it is that a copy of the poll-book was furnished to the applicant for it by the poll clerk of the Wallace district, with the express sanction of the Colonial Executive. We are therefore glad to exonerate that gentleman from all blame in the matter. He took the steps that all right-thinking men would have taken when he was applied to, —he refused to give the information asked, without authority from the Colonial Secretary, and on receiving that, he furnished the list published in the Tuapeha Times. This fact only renders the matter of graver moment than before. Being unable of ourselves to discover the legal authority for supplying information so capable of being applied to coercive purposes, we shall be glad if those who coincide with our views will assist us in thoroughly sifting the matter. Even should such an Act, or such a provision in any Act, have been passed through Parliament, it is so clearly subversive of the express object and intention of other Acts, that no Executive, or member of an Executive, ought to have felt justified in granting so dangerous a privilege to an elector or candidate as giving him access to the record of his fellow-electors’ votes. The Parliament of New Zealand, like that of Great Britain, have been at great pains to try to stop all reprehensible practices at elections by penal enactments. Thus in the year 1858 an Act was passed, bearing the short title “ Corrupt Practices Prevention ‘‘Act,” and it is very singular that one of the clauses bears by implication immediately on the point we insist uponthe .sacredness of the poll book. The fourth clause of that Act, after stating that “ Kvcry person who shall directly “ or indirectly, by himself or by any “ other person on his behalf,” make use of means “ in order to induce “ or compel such person to vote or re- “ train from voting, or on account of “ such person liavhuj voted or refrained “ from voting at nny election, etc. “ shall be liable to forfeit the sum of “ fifty pounds to any person who shall “ sue for the same, together with the “ costs of the suit.” We are not aware that that provision has ever boon repealed, and we shall lie borne out in the conclusion that by that clause the legislature of this Colony has deliberately made penal those sins of commission that the Executive Govern-

ment aid and idiot, by placing the moans in the hands of candidates or electors to commit them. With the copy of the poll-hook in his hand, an unscrupulous partisan may seek out some dependent voter, point out his previous vote, and by some of the thousand and one ways at the command of skilful electioneering tacticians insist upon its being given to a particular candidate on pain of future loss or inconvenience ; the copy of the poll-book for the then election becoming hereafter proof of how that vote was given. The same reasons that operated to secure the vote will bo equally ellective in securing freedom from prosecution of the offender. But the offence is light compared with that of the Government that affords facilities for com mitting it. It is a matter that cannot bo allowed to rest. The present Government promised last session to introduce a Bill at the next meeting of Parliament for taking votes by ballot. In view of the authority given to the returning officers to furnish copies of the Poll books, the sincerity of their intentions may Vic doubted ; but the duty of our representatives is clear—it there bo no law sanctioning so reprehensible a practice, by whose and by what authority is it done 1 It is a fair subject for Parliamentary inquiry.