EXAMINER SLAP DASH ASSERTION.

Auckland Examiner, Volume III, Issue 141, 12 March 1859, Page 2

EXAMINER SLAP DASH ASSERTION.

In the Cross of yesterday an attempt is made to show that we are by no means so carefully guarded as we should be, and far from qualified to draw pea against the only Auckland editor who “ has the credit of making nomistakes.’’

After quoting from last Examiner a “slap dash assertion ” concerning Auckland Roll purification, Editor Red Cat says — This is an error, and a very careless one, which would have been obviated by attention to the debates. But our contemporary does not make more than obscurely manifest the “very careless error” we have committed. He complains of our “ slap dash assertion,” but does not show in what respect it is erroneous. For correction we are always thankful, and hud the Cross editor set us right with regard to any particular topic, we should have felt that favor had been conferred upon us. But while professing to set us right, he has simply and decidedly set himself wrong. Our argunient was that wholesale disfranchisement of Auckland electors could not have been contemplated by the General Assembly, Cross Editor Red Cat obscurely takes obscure exception to this “slap dash assertion” and declares— disfranchisement of pH such householders as had changed their residence within the required six months was deliberately con-* templated by the Assembly, although unwillingly allowed lo remain by the Representatives. No Examiner error manifest yet. Our “ slap dash assertion” is not disturbed by the careful statement of our contemporary. No doubt disfranehjsementof all such householders as had changed their residence within period specified was deliberately contemplated by the Assembly, but question is —Did the General Assembly foresee that wholesale disfranchisement would result from their six month's residence clause?

Editor Red Cat himself being judge that clause was “unwillingly allowed to remain by the Representatives’,” -

“ Oh yes, but such disfranchisement is required by the Constitution Act.” True, but how that affects our “ slap dash assertion” as to non-disfranchising spirit of General Assembly Electoral Aet wo are unable to find out. Editor Red Cat himself being judge the Assembly had obtained power to amend certain sections of that (Constitution) Act, and by the qualification of Electors Bill, of the last Session, change of residence was to have been allowed. These statements of our carefully-guarded contemporary are conclusive—not against us, but against himself. What he calls our ‘‘ error, and a very careless one,” has no existence apart from his own rather warm imagination.