The Globe. FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 969, 3 August 1877, Page 2

The Globe. FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 1877.

An inspection o£ the minutes of the hole and corner meetings which preceded the departure of the delegate of the City Council to the Municipal Conference now sitting reveals what we have already pointed out —that subjects of great interest to the ratepayers were decided privately. One of the instructions to the delegate was to recommend to the Government a change in the system of voting in the election of Mayor. Under the present law, each ratepayer has a vote. But without in any way consulting their constituents, the Council have resolved to recommend that the voting for the election of Mayor shall be cumulative. The result of this would he, that the large holders of property would be enabled to swamp the voice of the ratepayers, and confine the choice of a Mayor to a clique. There is now no cause for wonder that the Council desired to beep their proceedings private. The members, no doubt, honestly believe in the propriety of the change they wish to see carried out, but they can scarcely regard it as a popular proposal. They must have been perfectly well aware that it would be opposed to the wishes of the bulk of the ratepayers, Had not the light of day been unexpectedly let in upon the doings of this nice little family party in committee, no one, till it was too late, would have been the wiser. And were the recommendation which lias been made carried out, would the holders of property allow any one out of their own immediate clique to attain to the position of Mayor f If the Mayor is to be elected by the ratepayers at all, he ought certain ly to be elected in the ordinary manner. It must not be forgotten that the Mayor does not stand in the same position as councillors. It may he quite right that cumulative voting should bo allowed in their election, as their principal duty is to manage the ratepayers money. A large holder of property contributes more than a small one does to the rates of the city, and hence has a right to a larger voice in the election of those who will expend theni. But ' m the case the Mayor it is different. He represents the entire body of the citizens —the small ratepayers as well as the large. Hence the man who pays £l, has just as much right to a voice, and an equal one, in the Mayoral election as the man who pays ten times that amount. To attempt to deprive him of that privilege is to place the election by the hands of a few who can sway it as they think proper. The remedy is in hands of the ratepayers themselves through the city members in the House, and we trust no time will be lost in speaking om with no uncertain sound. Let steps be taken at once to protest against this attempt to deprive the people of their privileges. Let the Government be informed that the recommendation does not emanate from the citizens cf Christchurch. This can lie done either by public meeting <*>• by petition, and it is lor the public Iliemsclves. now that they have the particulars before them, to save themselves from being virtually disfranchised in the choice of then’ Mayor. That office is not now 4 mere

honorary one. Undertheprcscntsystem, the gentleman holding it has important public duties to fulfil, as the representative of the citizens. That we maintain will not be secured by the proposal that the Mayor should be returned by a clique, no matter how wealthy and influential it may be. .But whatever is to be done must be done quickly. Mr. Hobbs has gone to Wellington as the representative of Christchurch. it remains for the public here to show the Government that he does not, when supporting such a proposition as that referred to, at all represent the views of the ratepayers, and we hope they will do so in a manner about which there can be no mistake whatever.