Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1902. Inconsistences of Legislators.

Manawatu Herald, 12 June 1902, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1902. Inconsistences of Legislators.

The sudden resignation of the Mayor of this Borough has been the means of throwing a strong light upon the extraordinary inconsistences of our legislators. Their professions and their acts are so dissimilar. We have been told, time after time, that the whole object of Liberal legislation was to obtain government for the people, by the people, yet to-day we are met with the fact that in measures containing supposed liberal representation, our legislators have ignored the people and placed in the bands of a few ratepayers the power to elect a Mayor. All 'this is very odd, when we recall past legislation on the power of local bodies. In past days the Mayor and Councillors were elected by the majority of votes ; a change was made that though Councillors should still be elected under the latter system, the Mayor was to be chosen by one voter, one vote. Since then, to give everyone a voice in the election of representatives Councillors received, as now, only one vote from each voter. The electoral power was also increased to give not only voters, but those holding a residential qualification, a vote. These enactments show that the mind of our legislators was to give everyone, high or low, rich or poor, a voice in the election of both Mayor and Councillors.

A change has been insiduously introduced upsetting all such intentions, as we find in 1886 it was enacted “ if any extraordinary vacancy of the office of Mayor, the Council may appoint one of the Councillors to be Mayor, who shall temporarily hold office until such vacancy is filled by the election of a new Msiyor; but if such vacancy occurs within three months before the day of the annual election of Mayor, the Councillor so appointed shall continue to hold the office of Mayor until such election.” This clause evidently approved of the ratepayers having a voice in the election of the chief officer of the borough, unless indeed it was so close upon the general annual election as to make it practically unnecessary. In the year 1900, when the consolidated measure. referring to Municipal Cooperations was passed, this safeguard, either intentionally or accidentally, has been swept away and the following clause stands in its place “ The Mayor may resign his office by writing under his hand delivered to the Town Clerk, and in such case, or in case of the death, incapacity, or ousted from office of such Mayor, his office shall become vacant, and the Council shall forthwith proceed to elect another Mayor in his stead, who shall hold office until the Mayor elected at the next annual election comes into office. The Town Clerk shall forthwith upon such vacancy occurring call a special of the Council for making such election thereto, but no such resolution or requisition as mentioned in section seventy-two hereof shall be necessary ? . By this new enactment the wishes of the people are swept away, and, as in the present case the person elected by the Council will, unless he also resigns unexpectedly, rule over

the town until next April. It seems as though the whole reasons hitherto set out for the separate election of a ’Mayor, which was that ho should personally be brought into more direct contact with the ratepayers, should be one who held a more general grasp of the aspects of all questions brought up for consideration, have been set at nought, as the Councillors, nine, (if all happen to be present) are empowered to make a selection which otherwise has been left in the bands of ratepayers generally. If the previous enactments have been the embodiment of wisdom, this last enactment is far otherwise, as from no fault on the part of the ratepayers they are disenfranchised for nearly ten months. It is to be hoped the framers of the Act never expected a public man to act as the late Mayor has done with so little reason.