The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1884.

Thames Star, Volume XV, Issue 4915, 10 October 1884, Page 2

The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1884.

A very useful measure has been introduced into Parliament by the member for Coromandel. It is entitled " The Counties Act Amendment Bill," and provides that the Chairman of a County is to be elected by the County electors annually, in the same way that Mayors are at present elected by the burgesses. Existing Chairmen are to be deemed elected. Where the Counties Act is not in force, Koad Boards and Town Boards are to exercise the functions of County Councils. Miners are not to vote unless two months resident in a riding. An elector may vote notwithstanding the fact of his not hating paid his rates. A county may be subdivided for the purposes of constructing irrigation works, and a special loan may be raised in separate subdivision for irrigation. In case of extraordinary damage by flood, &c, a special loan may be raised without consent of the ratepayers. With all these provisions, excepting one, we must coincide. The most desirable clause of the bill is that providing for the election by the ratepayers of the County, as a whole, of the County Chairman, on the same principle now obtaining in connection with mayors of municipal bodies. This is a question admitting of little dispute, and does away with many abuses which have from time to time been allowable under the existing system. The very important office of County Chairman is one which should be left in the bands of those whose interests are, or should be, paramount in a Council, and the many powers which may be wielded by the officer in question so seriously affect the welfare of a County, that it, as a whole should have a voice in the selection of the man to fill so responsible a position. The other clauses of the Bill are open to little objection, except as stated, one of them; that is, the provision that an elector may vote notwithstanding the fact that he has not paid his rates. This is not only most unwise and unbusinesslike, but a very dangerous and ultra-radical proposal to make. It raises the question as to whether

those living within a County are liable for their rates or not. It impliedly puts it that the payment of rates should be' a matter of option or convenience with those who derive all the advantages obtainable from local government, and as far as we can see, no solid argument can be adduced for such a revolutionary provision. An elector should be a ratepayer undoubtedly, and unless he is a ratepayer he can • not, and should not, participate in ans p privileges attached to the selection of representatives in any local governing body. The word ratepayer carries its own meaning, viz., one who pays rates, and it is surely equitable that if a person does not pay those rates, be can hardly term himself a ratepayer. If he owes no rates, and is not on a rate roll, he cannot be called upon to pay, so that no benefit would be de<rived from the proposal by any but those who do not liquidate their just liabilities. We have some confidence in the common sense of the House, and have littfe doubt that if the bill reaches Committee this clause will be expunged.