Poverty Bay Standard. Published Every Evening. GISBORNE: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1882.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1194, 6 November 1882, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. Published Every Evening. GISBORNE: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1882.

Among Englishmen generally, and British Colonists in particular, a most extraordinary apathy exists regarding the exercise of their franchise. Perhaps to a great extent this apathy has been generated by the undeniable fact that electors of all kinds, general or municipal, to high responsibilities or to minor posts, have as a rule not been, under the old system of polling, conducted on those principles of fair play and freedom of opinion which constitute the real and intrinsic value of the franchise as recorded by the ballot. Under that system there can be no coercion. Nobody can tell for whom his neighbour votes, and the old voting influence so long exercised by employer over employee is a thing of the past, gone never more to return, never more to taint and prostitute the freedom which should be, and is, the pride and boast of every British subject. We notice, therefore, with some surprise, a letter in the “ Herald ” of Saturday evening, declaiming against Mr. Henry Lewis’s candidature for the Mayoralty on the grounds that he is a “ publicans’protege,” and that as such his return to the soon to be vacant post of honor becomes a certainty. Perhaps Mr. Browne would kindly be more explicit in his rendering of the term “publicans’ protege,” for it is decidedly an ambiguous one, and very apt to mislead people, strangers to Mr. Lewis, in their impressions regarding that gentleman ; and as all these little inuendos, though perhaps at any other time they would not be deserving of serious notice, are calculated at the time of an election to damage the interests of the candidate on whom they reflect, we would ask whether Mr. James Browne, the wTiter of the letter referred to, uses the

term “ protege of the publicans” in connec- ' tion with Mr. Lewis in a sense that would imply something wrong that is hidden from i the public view ; or has he simply used it as a “ facon de pavler,” to imply that the publicans as a body have undertaken his cause and intend in so doing (we quote Mr. Browne’s own words) “to assume the right and claim for themselves the power, of returning any candidate whom they select as their favorite.” if the latter is the case we quite think that Mr. Browne is in error. Mr. Lewis will not stand on a class ticket, but trusting to a wise discretionary use of the franchise vested in ratepayers generally, of which body doubtless the publicans form a portion. Still Mr. Browne must remember that there is hardly any craft or guild existent which, with an adventitious election for the important office of Chief Magistrate of the Borough in which their businesses are situate, drawing nigh, would not talk over matters connected with such an election, and jealously canvas and criticise the various merits and claims of the respective candidates, and, in all probability, Anally fix upon the one to whom they should accord their support. That this has been the case in Gisborne, we do not for a moment assert, for we j do not know. It may, or may not have been i the case, but even allowing, for argument’s 1 sake, that it has been so, we fail to see any- ! thing in its so being that may he called wrong or unreasonable, or ‘ ‘ an attempt at usurpation.” It would simply appear to us to be the result of co-consultation among a body of tradesmen, who having the interests of the Borough at heart, have gone to some pains in weighing carefully the merits and claims of the respective candidates, in order that they may advocate the cause, and, if ' possible, secure the return of the fittest man i to fill the office, no unimportant trust, for I the ensuing year, of Chief Magistrate of the Borough. Because a body of men may comi bine to use their influence in securing the return of one particular candidate against others, it would be distinctly unjust to accuse them of being indifferent to the qualities and merits which the occupant of so important a position should possess; and while equally averse with Mr. Browne to coercion of any kind in matters of electioneering, we think the voter is so entirely protected by the secrecy of the ballot that the danger referred to is reduced to a minimum. In this • particular instance we have found from our ’ own experience that coertion has been sought ' to be applied against Mr. Lewis’s supporters, ! and that by tradesmen other than publicans, | and in other ways. We feel quite sure that ■ Mr. Lewis himself would disclaim any idea ! of being returned except by the free and inI dependent choice of voters. He only asks a i fair field, and no favour, relying more for support upon the sagacity of his fellow townsmen and his own merits, than upon any of the chimerical “class efforts ” so portentiously shadowed forth in Mr. James Browne’s letter, That his confidence is not misplaced we are convinced, and we would invite Mr. James Browne, who “ has nothing to urge against either of the present candidates,” to so aid our views in recording his vote on the polling day, and to so exert his influence in matters municipal, that one of those candidates against whom he has “nothing to urge,” namely, Mr. Henry Lewis, shall be returned to the important office of Mayor of Gisborne.