Our Daily News Letter

(By Our Jerusalem Correspondent)

The recent decision of the Palestine Supreme Court, under the Chief Justice, Sir Thomas Haycraft, in the case of the Landlords and Property Owners Association of Tel-Aviv against the Tel-Aviv Municipality, in the matter of the franchise, has not, as some expected perhaps, settled the issue involved in this case, namely, the question of who is entitled to vote, every Jew living and working in Palestine or only those who pay taxes.

The differences of opinion represented in this case are indicative of a wider circle than Tel-Aviv and the outcome of the matter may have a far-reaching effect on the whole country, in so far as the question of franchise is concerned.

As is well known the municipal elections which took place in Tel-Aviv at the end of 1924, resulted in the election of a Labor majority on the Municipal Council. Consequently, the element representing the landlords, property owners and rate-payers (tax-payers), decided to bring to a head the issue of the franchise, which had been outstanding in Tel-Aviv for a long period, by taking the case to court. It was contended by this element that only rate-payers should be allowed to participate in the polling. The labor group, however, argued that every Jew coming to Palestine and working in Palestine is entitled to a vote, whether he is a rate-payer in the strict sense of the term or not.

While in its judgment, just handed down, the Supreme Court did not touch directly upon the actual request of the landlords, the dissolution of the Municipaltity, it was suggested that the township hold municipal elections as early as possible, three months being considered the time-limit, and declared that “actual rate-payers” only should be eligible for franchise.

The position of the landlords and tax-payers, for whom the decision of the Supreme Court was a victory, is stated in an editorial appearing in the “Palestine Weekly” of July 23.

“It is perhaps not so surprising,” the “Palestine Weekly” writes, “that the Municipal Council of Tel Aviv as at present constituted should seek to widen the circle of electors to such an extent as to ensure to their party a safe majority at the forthcoming municipal elections. At the last elections towards the end of 1924, the Labor Party at Tel Aviv owed its victory mainly to the excellent discipline prevailing in the ranks of the party. This time, when a considerable degree of disaffection is being manifested in the ranks of the Jewish workmen at Tel Aviv and elsewhere as a result of the economic crisis prevailing in Palestine as a whole, the leaders of the party and their nominees at the Municipal Council of Tel Aviv aim at organizing an electorate which will be able to carry the day at the polling booths by sheer force of numbers.

“What is more surprising is that the Township of Tel Aviv should try to defend this point of view in the High Court. While we can understand the contentions of the Labor and pro-Labor press that every Jew coming to Palestine and working in Palestine is entitled to a vote, whether he is a ‘rate-payer’ in the strict sense of the term or not, it is difficult to see how such an argument can be advanced in a court of law. There are doubtless quite a few Australians, Canadians and other citizens of British Dominions or Colonies who come to settle in the United Kingdom, people who have rendered yeomen service both to their country and to the British Empire as a whole. For all that, no man in his senses will lay claim to suffrage rights unless he has complied with the laws and regulations governing elections,” the paper declares.