The Daily Times. The oldest Manawatu journal: Established 1875. MONDAY, FEB. 11, 1884 A MAJORITY.

Manawatu Times, Volume X, Issue 1172, 11 February 1884, Page 2

The Daily Times. The oldest Manawatu journal: Established 1875. MONDAY, FEB. 11, 1884 A MAJORITY.

On a recent occasion a comparison was instituted between one of the provisions of the Eoads and Bridges Construction Act and one of the Municipal Corporations Act, both bearing on_ the same subject; and, those who made the comparison appeared to be under the impression that m this respect the first-mentioned Act was far preferable to the latter. The clauses referred to were the ones relating to the majorities required by the respective Acts to enable a loan proposal to be carried. The Municipal Corporations Act, or rather the Amendment Act, requires that a clear majority of those qualified to vote must declare m favor of a loan before the proposal can be carried, and the ratepayers saddled with an additional burden. It was because this majority could not be secured that the ratepayers— when it was believed by a few that the money could be obtained under the other Act — were somewhat sneeringly told that m this event " only a majority of those voting will be required." Some of the promoters qf the scheme were evidently not content with the powers given to them under the Act by which they were elected, and m exercising which they had been defeated, but were prepared to adopt anything which would do the one thing needful. At the time we were strongly tempted to question the propriety of the course it was then proposed to adopt, but refrained from doing so because the prospect of the project being successful was very remote indeed. Subsequent events have confirmed us m the opinion as to the impropriety of the proposed pian, and also strengthened our belief that taken as a whole the Muni r cipal Corporations Act is one of the very best measures that has ever

passed through the Legislature. Under it of course absentees have to take the risk of the public money being spent more to the advantage of the resident ratepayers than to theirs, but a safeguard against excessive burdens being imposed is afforded by the fact that all Votes not given m connection with a loan proposal count almost precisely as if they were actually recorded against it. As we have already seen, tin's provision has worked to what is undoubtedly the best interest of the Borough, and there is no doubt that, although m some.rare instances where the number of absentees exceeds Mie number of -resident ratepayers, it may work to disadvantage, it is on the whole a very wise provision lu-one respect it is weak md that is that while thc> resident latepayers with four or five vofes may give them all m favor of the proposal or otherwise, the absentee with the same number, will only count as one against it. Whatever opinion may be held as to the justice of allowing 1 any ratepayer more than any vote, it must be admitted that the votes should count precisely the same m the case both of absentees and residents. Even this peculiarity of the Act t however, seems to have been framed with a good objeot lv vie w ,-anct-tentte-fco— Tnittblc-fch^ small property-holders 10 be more on an equality with the la^ge ones, when their interests are at stake, for as a rule ' the absentees are the largest- holders, and the Act apparantly assumes that they have not such a vital interest m the welfare of the town as the residents have. An instance has recently occurred which discloses the possibilities under the much belauded Hoads and Bridges -Construction Act, where the majority of votes lecorded de* cides the question. The other day a poll was taken under this Act for No 4 line, Fitzherbert, and while no votes weie recorded against the pro~ posal, one solitary vote was given m its favor and it was therefore de« clared carried. It would seem but fair to presume that this was perfectly just, as if those who were against the proposal did not choose to votetheymustsubmit to consequences. But there are a few peculiar facts m connection with this case which are worthy of being placed on record. In the first place it was a well-known fact that one large property-holder was totally opposed to the proposal, but his official duties precluded him from exercising his privilege, and his manager could not vote for him. The proposal, to him, meant the payment of rates to the amount of £42 annually for a term of fifteen years. Unfortunately for his views no other ratepayers but one were inclined to express their views one way or another, and, as this one voted for the proposal,he finds himself saddled with the payment until the term expires. The real absurdity of the poll, however, is brought out by the fact that the ratepayer who did vote possesses not a particle of interest m the district to be rated unless it be of a purely sentimental character, for since the roll was made up, his estate has been handed over to his creditors. It was all the same to him which way he voted,, and the single vote of this so-called ratepayer, who pays no rates and can-* not be called upon to pay them, compels the ratepayers of the district m which he once held property to raise L 63 per annum for the next fifteen years. This ratepayer may certainly be pardoned if he feels proud of the fact that while landless, and thoroughly divested of any stake m the district, he nevertheless had the power to authorise the construction of No 4 line, Fitzherbert, which road should be memorable as a striking example of what one man can do with the assistance of legal fiction and an Act which is far from being either a satisfactory or creditable one. Fortunately there is no such possibility under the MunicipalCorporations Act, to which it was compared.