The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1908. HAULING DOWN THE FLAG.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2312, 3 October 1908, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1908. HAULING DOWN THE FLAG.

Once more the Ward Ministry has nailed its colors to tho mast and once more the flag has been ignominiously torn down. The whole matter arose out of the Second Ballot Bill, sometimes known as the “gag” Bill. This was a measure devised to prevent the past absurdity whereby membersliave, in many instances, been returned to Parliament in. spite of the expressed wish of the majority of the voters that they should remain in private life. For many years efforts have been- made to induce the Government to bring in «, Bill dealing with this Saw in our electoral Taw, but without success. Truth ,to tell, was scarcely to be wondered at in a. Parliament which places self-preservation as the sole object of its political existence, for the bulk of the. members considered that a system which had been good enough to place them in power was too good to be lightly disturbed. However, the Premier has apparently come to the conclusion that party interests will be best served at the coming elections by a reformed system of voting, and he therefore brought down, his Second Ballot Bill. The principle of the second ballot is a good one, though in operation there -are some serious drawbacks, and in our opinion ,a preferential system such as has been embodied in Mr. McNab’s Absolute Majority Bill would have been much better. Unfortunately, Sir Joseph AVard was not satisfied to take the principle of the second ballot in its entirety, but- .attemped to load it with provisions quite foreign to its usual application. Chief of these is what has been aptly described as the “gag” clause. The first section read as follows :

(1) During tho interval between the first and second ballots it shall not he lawful for .any candidate at the second ballot, or for any person on liis behalf or in his interest, ■to call together or take part in any public meeting of electors (whether the admission to that meeting is goneral or restricted), or to address any such meeting. The second section makes it unlawful “to print, publish, exhibit, or distribute, or cause to be printed, published, exhibited, or distributed, .any advertisement, notice, address, article, or other document with intent to promote, procure, advocate, oppose, or prevent the election of any candidate at the second ballot, or to influence or procure the vote of any elector at the second ballot..

It will-he seen from this that although the phrase “gagging the press” has been applied to this latest of democratic proposals tho press was only incidentally interested and that only because it is part of its business to comment upon public affairs and matters of public interest. AVhatwas attacked in this proposal was the liberty of the public, the freedom of the electors, who were to be forbidden by their representatives in Parliament assembled “to call together or take jiart in any public meeting,” “or to address any such meeting,” while the election of candidates for their suffrages was still unsettled. Air. Alassey and other members of the Opposition protested vigorously against this attempted infringement upon political liberty, protests were registered from all parts of the Dominion against the iniquitous proposal, but in vain; Sir Joseph Ward said, in effect, that his hack was to the wall and he would fight for tho Bill as it stood with his last gasp. He claimed that the clauso in question was thoroughly democratic, being in the special interests of a candidate with a small purse who could not, under its beneficent provisions, be called upon to meet the financial opposition of wealthier rivals in the final stage of the political contest. Then came a peculiar feature. Sir Joseph AVard himself introduced an amendment to the Bill providing that where a candidate had received a clear majority of 500 over his nearest opponent, he would not need to face the second

ballot, but would bo declared elected, j oven though ho might still represent j a minority of tho total votes pollod. A fow days lator, when tlio Bill came j from tho Upper House, tho representative of tho Ministry there, Dr. Findlay, agreed to have it struck out. AVhothor tho Government had ascer- J tained in tho moantimo that tho clauso was likely to injuriously affect tho interests of its candidates at tho coming elections is not clear, but tho rapid cliango of front was certainly vory remarkable. Its .significance, however, has boon quite lost in the latest ovidonco of Ministerial tactics shown by tho dropping of tho “gag clause” after a conference with tho Managers of both Houses. The Council had already agreed to the objectionable provision, though in a slightly amended form, so that there soomed no reason for Sir Joseph AVard’s sudden reversal of policy. Only a day or two before ho had declared that he had rocoivod messages of approval from all parts of tho Dominion and ho was not going to let the throats of tho press or of any other section prevent him from passing tho clauso. Yot he calmly informed tho Houso a little later that tho clause would be deleted, and presumably tho poor candidate for whom Sir Joseph was so solicitous is to be cared for no longor. Tho whole busiues iis farcical and entirely typical of tho wretched tactics to which the present head of tho Government will resort in ordor to keep a tight hold upon the reins of power. It can be taken for granted from this and numerous other instances quite as glaring that Sir Joseph will never, under any circumstances, be found fighting for a ■ principle affecting tho welfare of tho people a moment after it is apparent that a surrender will better "servo his own political interests.