DISTRICT HIGHWAYS ACT.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume I, Issue 21, 25 May 1867, Page 3

DISTRICT HIGHWAYS ACT.

(From the “ FT. Z. Advertiser,” May 20.) The District Highways Amendment Act comes on for second reading to-morrow in the Provincial Council, and before hon. members take up the consideration of it, it may be well to point out one portion of it that is most objectionable. Like the scorpion the sting is in the tail, that is in the schedule. It is questionable whether any such Amendment Act is required at all, seeing that the Road Boards appear to work so well under the present Act, and have succeeded in making or repairing some 120 miles of road during the last year, and no complaints have been sent in against them. But as the amendments in the body of the Bill are only slight and do not affect any principle they may pass. Not so the schedule. Under the present Act the schedule fixes the votes at a certain ratio, ranging from I vote held by the small landowner of 100 acres, to 4 votes held by the owmer of land to the extent of 500 acres and upwards. There is a maximum of 4 votes and no more, to be held by one person, except in the case of the Chairman of the Board, wdio, ex officio, has his casting vote. But what does the new Act propose ? The holder of under 200 acres is to have but one vote instead of two as at present; from 200 acres to 500 two votes instead of three as at present; and for every additional 500 acres beyond that number an additional vote is to be held. There is no maximum, and the large landowner may hold such a number of votes as to swamp any meeting of a Board and carry everything his own w.ay. Tins is manifestly unjust, because it strikes a blow at the very men who are most useful in opening up the country. The small landowner must cultivate his little block and expend his money on the improvement of it while the large owner waits quietly until his lesser neighbors have done the work. To the small farmers and such others of the agricultural population the country owes it that any roads have been made, and not the large holders of runs, who, like the drones live on the honey that the working bees have gathered. The Council must, therefore, see that justice is done where it ought to be, and not let such an unfair proposition as that contained in the schedule to the proposed Bill to pass. Let bon. members glance at the English telegrams in another place, and they will see that the greatest English statesman of modern years has entered his emphatic protest against any system of dual voting. The principle is bad under any circumstances, and it is especially bad under those for which the District Highways Amendment Act is proposed. But, we doubt not, that the Council will set its face against the proposition, and we trust that sonic of those hon. members from the country who usually maintain an undignified silence at the lower end of the House, will open their mouths on the subject, for to them chiefly can the Council look for practical information with regard to it.