CONVEYING VOTERS TO THE POLL.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 1011, 13 December 1881, Page 4

CONVEYING VOTERS TO THE POLL.

Speaking of the total prohibition by the new Bribery Act of the practice of conveying voters to the poll, the Premier in his speech said : —•“ While, however, 1 appreciate the advantages of this Act, there is one feature of it which I am bound to say L do not approve, and that is the prohibition of the hiring of vehicles to convey voters •to the poll. In some country districts there are many voters who, unless means are provided for bringing them to the poll, will be almost disfranchised. It seems to me to be an inconsistency -to give these men votes, as we have been doing by our recent legislation, ■and at the same time to curtail the reasonable facilities which previously ■existed for bringing them to the poll.” In districts such as those to which the Premier alludes a difficulty certainly does arise. The object of prohibiting the use of vehicles at elections is to reduce expense and to prevent wealthy candidates obtaining an undue advant■age. The Bribery Act is looked to by those who oppose what are called the “ rights of property ” as a great protection. But curiously enough it cuts both ways. Per while in towns on the •one hand, a rich candidate can no longer buy up the services of the cabs on the •polling day ; in the country, on the ■other hand, a poor elector cannot count on getting to the poll. The propertied class have their traps or carriages to drive in if they live at a distance ; but 'laborers have not, and a candidate is no longer at liberty to accommodate ■them with a coach. This evil might ■have been remedied by a proviso, that -in the event of all the candidates •agreeing to unite in supplying the ■electors with the means of conveyance ■(in cases where distance rendered some means of transit other than walking ■necessary), then the employment of ■coaches should not amount to a “ corrupt practice ” within the Act—provided always that each vehicle was run dn the interest of all the candidates conjointly, and not for any particular candidate. Some such clause as that, we ■think, would have been an improvement to the Act, which seems ruthlessly indiseriminating as to good and bad electioneering practices. We dis•ap prove altogether of the practice of running rival cabs or other vehicles, not only on the score of expense, but because it violates the secrecy of the ballot, because it is flagrant touting, and—not the least —because it is an ■insult to the electors. But if vehicles -could be run by all the candidates amicably and conjointly, we don’t consider they would be objectionable if they were really useful. Sunning them for the benefit of the electors is a very different thing to running them for the benefit of a candidate. But as candidates have been accus■tomed to use them primarily for the purpose of touting, and -only second--arily to convenience the electors, the Bribery Act has prohibited both uses without distinction. Inasmuch as the Act abolishes, or rather let us say hopes, to abolish, a great evil and a small good, we welcome it; but our welcome would have been more hearty if the Act could have managed to remove the evil, and leave the goodsmall though it be.