The Telephone. WITH WHICH INCORPORATED THE POVERTY BAY STANDARD. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 294, 25 November 1884, Page 2

The Telephone. WITH WHICH INCORPORATED THE POVERTY BAY STANDARD. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25.

The right to vote is a question which often puzzles even those who have a most intimate acquaintance with the ins and outs of the Rating Act. It is generally supposed that a person can vote whose name is on the roll, but it is also argued that the payment of rates due is a condition precedent, Previous to the recent election there was a large influx of money into the coffers of the local bodies, in order to secure the privilege of voting. The question has recently taken a tangible form in Nelson, where a gentleman referred the matter for counsel's opinion to a noted firm of barristers who furnished the following reply, which is at on once authoritative and likely;—“ In answer to your question, whether a ratepayer is entitled to vote at a Road Board election when his rate is payable but has not been paid, nor demanded as required by section 23, ‘ Rating Act, 1882,’ we think that section does not conclude the matter, though its imperative provisions are a strong argument in faior of its qualifying the word 1 due' in Section 38, ‘ Road Board Act, 1882.’ But we think the question is determined, at all events so far as the conduct of the election is concerned, by Section 41 of the latter Act, which makes the Ratepayers’ Roll, formed each year in the month of April, or if this has not been formed, the Valuation Roll, conclusive evidence of the right to vote of those appearing on it. It may well be that this is in conflict with Section 39 of the same Act; if so the Court of Review must settle it, not the Returning Officer, who has no means of doing so. Evidently the decision might involve difficult questions both of law and fact not to be settled in a polling booth. The Returning Officer’s duties are defined by the Regulation of Local Elections Act, 1876; and in ascertaining who are voters, he must guide himself by the roll —that is, the annual Ratepayers’ Roll, or if there is none, the Valuation Roll —not a roll made for the occasion—which latter roll, so far as we are aware, is an instrument unknown to the law, and of no validity. Our answer to the question therefore is —that the ratepayers on the roll (as above described) are at all events entitled to record their votes, and the Court, if necessary, must afterwards decide whether or not their votes, or any of them must be disallowed.—Fell & Atkinson.—Nelson, 18th October, 1884.” From the foregoing, then, it would seem that the payment of rates before voting is necessary, but there is no provision for the formation of disqualification lists, or for permitting the Returning Officer to question the voter on the subject of his rates, so long as his name is on the ratepayers’ roll; but, after the election is over, a properly constituted Court, presided over by the Resident Magistrate, may be set in motion to review the names of those who voted, and strike out all those whose rates were not paid previous to voting. There is yet another point which is worth consideration as to whether a person who has not paid his rates can sign a nomination-paper or not. The Act says: “Any person who

. . . signs a nomination-paper, knowing himself to be not qualified to vote at the election, shall be liable to a penalty of /20. Clearly then the liability is incurred at the time of signing, and cannot be cured by an after payment, because he was already disqualified. Hence we {Nelson Mail) consider that a nomination is unsound under such circumstances. Another clause provides: “ That if upon any such inquiry it appears . . . that the persons signing the nomination-paper of any candidate were not entitled to sign ... in any such case the election of such candidate shall be void, and the candidate next highest on the poll, not being already declared to be duly elected, and whose election is not void, shall be declared to be duly elected.” While we are on this subject, we may remark that the provision as to the payment of rates before voting at local elections is inequitable, although it is the law, for this reason : The right to vote is based on a property qualification, and the property is security and liable for the payment of the rates. Consequently whether such rates have been actually collected or not is a matter resting with the collector, and after or above him the Board levying the rates. It appears to us in fairness that as any. person who is actually in possession of the property may be at any time forced to pay, not only the current rate but the arrears also, it follows that he ought to be allowed to vote upon it, and the Board’s books should ipso facto create and protect the right to vote. It is also unfair that the election of administrators should be used as a means for forcing people to pay, while there is a regular and proper Court provided for the purpose. In the “ good time coming,” perhaps, a similar view may be taken by our legislators.