A GRAVE IRREGULARITY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 913, 4 February 1882, Page 3

A GRAVE IRREGULARITY.

Says the Wellington Pod; “The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1881, enacts in clause 10 that any person convicted of corrupt practices ‘ shall not be capable during a period of five years from the dale of his conviction of holding any public or judicial office within the meaning of this Act, and if he holds any snch office the office shall be vacated.’ A ‘public office’ is defined by the Act as meaning ‘any office under the Educat : on Act, 1877.’ Mr J. G. Pharazyn, J.P., Chairman and member of the Wellington Education Board, has been convicted of ‘ corrupt practices,’ and consequently he is no longer a Justice of the Peace or Chairman or member of the Education Board. We are, of course,

very sm-cy fur Mr Pharazyn. whose’ strange mistake has i vo v<hl uii him sue \

I serious consequences. Sdll, we c nond ■ shut our eyes to the fact that he Ims b eo legally convicted, avd that, by virtue of that conviction, he has ipso facto vacated all his public offices except his seat in the Legislative Council, which is not mentioned in the Act. Yet we still find him sitting and voting and presiding at this weeks meetings of the Education Board, of which he is no longer either chairman or even a member, of which, indeed, he will not, for five years to come, be capable of being a member. And we find the other members of the Board submitting to this monstrous irregularity without protest, and indeed, with ready acquiescence, Wo are amazed that Mr Pharazyn should have attempted to take again his seat, which by law he has forfeited, but he does queer things sometimes ; we are much more astonished that his late colleagues should have become participators in the impropriety. However they may sympathise with Mr Pltarazyn and think with us, that the punishment of five years’ disqualification which he has to suffer is altogether disproportionate to the technical offence he committed, that is no reason why they should connive at a gross illegality, and set the law at flat defiance. It is indeed a curious example to set the children, whose morals they ate supposed to guard. Surely obedience to law and authority is the chief of all duties they are bound to inculcate, and as it is they are teaching their pupils that both may be treated with contemptuous disregard. This is not the way to inspire regard for order or good conduct. We understand that the members excuse themselves for their impropriety by pleading tbit under clause 23 of the Education Act, 1877, their proceedings cannot be invalidated on the ground that ‘ any supposed member of the Board is incapable of being a member.’ But this does not touch the present case at all. That was only meant to some accidental irregularity in an election. It was never intended to apply to a vacancy created by conviction for corrupt practice. Mr Pharazyn is not ‘ supposed’ to be a member because everybody knows quite we’l that he is not a member, and is incapable for five years of being one There is no doubt that everything done by the Board this week under Mr Pharazytt’s chairmanship is invalid, and can be readily upset, the indemnity clause in the Education Act notwithstanding, and if the Board < o not take prompt steps to rectify the irregularity they have wilfully committed, they will find this out to then- cost—or rather to the cost of their unfortunate constituents.