The Inagahua Times PUBLISHED TRI-WEEKLY. MONDAY,SEPTEMBER 8,1884.

Inangahua Times, Volume IX, Issue 1441, 8 September 1884, Page 2

The Inagahua Times PUBLISHED TRI-WEEKLY. MONDAY,SEPTEMBER 8, 1884.

The disgraoef ul disclosure made in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Reefton, on the 1 7th June last relative to the wholesale stuffing of the Rolls of the Inangahna County with bogus miners right voters have been published to the world, and had their due effect. A petition signed by nearly two-thirds of the ratepayers of Reef ton has Ween drawn up, and in the course of a day or two will be presented to Parliament. The petition is based upon the sworn evidence as given in the Magistrate's Court, and being signed, as wh have already said, by upwards of two-thirds of the bona kde ratepayers of Reefton, and revealing one of the most impudent and audacious attacks upon, the civil | liberties of a community that was ever attempted in this or any other Colony, will not fail to command the fullest consideration of the House. We observe in what may be termed a special County Council edition of the inangahua Herald of Saturday last an attempt is made to thwart the aims of the petitioners by a gross and shameless misrepresentation of the facts. The allegation contained in the petition that the Miners Rights were taken out without the previous authority or knowledge of the persons whose names were used is fully confirmed by the evidence on oath given in the Magistrate's Court by J. Morris, one of the recipients of the Miners Right's, who declared in his . evidence that he did not authorise any person to take out a Miners Right for him, neither did he pay for it, but received the right through the post, from some unknown sender. This same J. Morris now writes to the paper in question " distinctly affirming " that he did pay for the Miners Right. There can be no difficulty iv judging which of these two statements is correct. The whole of the other persons for whom the rights were issued also "distinctly affirm" that they paid for and authorised the rights' to be taken out for them. But this denial was only to be expected, and goes to prove the perfect discrimination exercised by the person who took out and paid for . the. rights. It Hoes not, however, explain why the servant; of the Councjl.who took out the rights, could not be served with a subpoena on the day the cases were being heard m Court. That onieer chanced to leave Reefton a day or two before the Court sat, otherwise, he would have been afforded the opportunity which he evidently did not desire, of proving the bona ildek of the transaction. It would be instructive also to know the ! motive of the Clerk of the Council for begging and imploring as a special favor not to be called as a witness on that occasion. In the face of all this, however and in addition to the admission in open Court of the County t Council Solicitor that although this stuffing of the Rolls might be reprehensible on public grounds, it was not illegal,people are expected to believe that the Miners Right's were not taken out for the purpose of swamping the legitimate ratepayers. When a newspaper(?) can be found to champion such conduct as this in connection with a public body we may cease to marvel at the fact of two persons being found out of some hundreds ready to sign a letter to prove that they are not responsible for their actions. That the paper in question as the grateful recipient of all the crumbs that fall from the County Council table should endeavor to bolster up the disgraceful proceeding, was only to be expected, but will avail little against the prayer of nearly two hundred of the principal property holders of the community. It is not necessary that we should refer to the "arguments" which are advanced against legislative interference with the miners' right franchise, for argument would be thrown away upon one who evidently fails to see that the allowance of the miners right vote to 57 persons who are not miners at all is practically to disfranchise every boaa tide miner in the Riding.