BOARD OF EDUCATION ELECTIONS.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2789, 2 March 1882, Page 2

BOARD OF EDUCATION ELECTIONS.

At the meeting of the Board of Education yesterday a discussion was raised by the nature of the returns sent in by the Committees. Mr Wakefield said be noticed that some Committees had only voted for two candidates instead of three. He supposed this arose from a misunderstanding—that they were misled by the fact that each Committee only nominated two candidates, and consequently imagined they were only entitled to vote for two. Mr Barker said that some Committees had received circulars from other Committees asking them to vote for only two, in order to make sure of returning these. Mr Wakefield considered this a very wrong system. If the system of ‘‘plumpingll for particular candidates prevailed the whole object of the election would be defeated, which was that there should be a wide choice of candidates and that the best men should be drawn together upon the Board of Education. If the system of “ plumping ” were followed it would end in Committees sacrificing good material in order to get particular men in, and the character of the Board would be very much depreciated. Gentlemen whom it would be extremely desirable to have on the Board would be excluded, simply from the desire of a particular Committee to get a local candidate elected. He was sorry to find the system had any hold in the district, for it entirely undermined the broad system of voting by Committees, The Chairman stated that only three Committees had plumped for one candidate ; six voted for only two.

Mr Barker said he believed it to be the general wish that the members should be returned for particular districts.

Mr Barclay knew of two Committees that fell into the mistake mentioned by Mr Wakefield.

The Chairman pointed out that the circulars respecting the election most distinctly showed that three candidates could bo voted for.

Mr Barclay said he did not excuse the ignorance of those Committees, but merely stated the fact. Mr Barker said that at every election there had been a struggle to get in a local man, not because he was the best man, but because he was a local man. The feeling which prompted this appeared to be very strong. Mr Walcot said that at the_ last election all the southern Committees voted for Mr Steward because he was a southern candidate, and he quoted circulars sent round to the effect, “If you will vote for our man we will vote for yours.” Mr Wakefield thought Mr Steward had been voted for all over the district because he was a good man. The circular system was a very vicious one. The Chairman concurred in the last remark. Mr Walcot said that this time a circular was sent from the northern to the southern district, “If you will support Dr Forster we will support Dr Chilton.”

Mr Barclay asked Mr Goldsmith if the Waimate Committee did not send such a circular to the northern Committees.

Mr Goldsmith replied that the Committee did not, but he could not say what Dr Chilton might have done on his own account.

Mr Barclay—There was such a circular and Dr Chilton got votes through it. Mr Barker said the Act decidedly wanted amending in respect to elections. Mr Wakefield did not think so. He thought the system of electing members to the Board, if properly followed, and as the Legislature intended, one of the best features of the Act. The matter then dropped.