CORRESPONDENCE.

Temuka Leader, Volume I, Issue 95, 13 November 1878, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

(to the editor of the tejidka leader.) Sir, — As the question of how manyvotes can be lawfully claimed by electors at the present County election has attracted much notice it may be of interest to examine the matter. The 41st section of the Counties Act gives the electors a plurality of votes on a scale of property qualification ; and at the first election hi'ld under the Act, when the entire Counties Act was for the time in force, the electors could claim under that section. Immediately afterwards the operation of the Act was restricted by a resolution of the Council, and we then find that section 41 cannot be used because it is amonest those which the Council has refused to adopt. Both the intention of the framers of the Act and the consequences are obvious, namely, to deprive the electors of a privilege which they w( uld have otherwise obtained. As we cannot then obtain a plurality of votes under section 41 how are we to yotil In reply, we find in section 51 of the Counties Act that when the; whole of the Att is not in force an elector is defined as a person who is on the electoral roll of a Road Board, but no mention is made of a qualification for a plurality of votes. On the contrary Ave find there that a man may vote who is on the roll for the Assembly, and we know that this means one vote only. On the suspension of section 41 of the Counties Act is it reasonable to suppose that it was intended to substitute for it a much "lower" scale of qualification; if so, a man voting on a County qualification of LSO would get one vote, whilst under the Road Board scale he will get two votes, &c.. because he has refused to adopt the Act. This is absurd. Again, section 26 of the Canterbury Roads Ordinance, 1872, lays down the rule that a man may be an elector although he pays no rates, in which case he shall have one vote only. This is strictly applicable to the present position. I think that no authority can be found for more than one vote, and that section 51 Counties Act, and section 26 Canterbury Roads Ordinance, are the-only sections which bear on the subje"cv"|«l_they tell us to use the Road Board electoral roll, but not its qualification. >^'" The intimation sent to the Returning Officer that "if the Road Board- electors have been hitherto entitled to a plurality of votes they are to have them in the present instance " is most absurd. To what else could they have been hitherto entitled ? But there is no authority for in the present instance. Tours, &c, Scrutineer,