CITY ELECTORAL INQUIRY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 172, 21 July 1903, Page 3

CITY ELECTORAL INQUIRY.

ALLEGED ROLL-STUFFING AND IRREGULARITIES.

REMARKABLE EVIDENCE,

Some interesting and startling allegations regarding roll-stuffing and wholegale irregularities in dealing with voters' applications were made before the special committee of the City Council, which opened an inquiry last night into the conduct of the last municipal election and the state of the city rolls. Councillor S. C. Brown presided, and those also sitting were the Mayor (the Hon.. E. Mitchelson), Councillors A. E. Glover, C. J. Parr, Dr. Sharman, and L. J. Bagnail, with the Town Clerk, Mr H. W. Wilson. The inquiry was public, but only a dozen or so interested parties were present. DEFECTIVE POLLING ARRANGEMENTS. The chairman announced that the inquiry was purely an informal one, and they had no power to compel the attendance of anyone to give evidence. Witnesses able to testify as to stuffing the roll, improprieties and irregularities in the polling booths, and inconveniences in recording votes through defective arrangements, were invited to make statements. Evidence would not be required on oath. They would first take evidence as to the defective arrangement and difficulty in recording votes. He read a letter from Mrs Agnes J. Colvin, who said she went to the old police station, Highstreet, at 3.35, and waited until a few minutes to 4 o'clock. Seeing no prospect of being able to vote she was directed to go to the Drill Hall, but found there was bo voting there. She went back to the old police station, but found the block just as bad, so she went to the Central Mission Hall, Albert street, where she voted, as it was not so crowded. She lost nearly an hour in recording her vote. Mrs. Colvin was present, and added a little to her testimony. She said she had no trouble in voting for Councillors, only for Mayor. The arrangements were better at the Mission Hall. Mrs. Jane O'C'arroll, of Short street, East Ward, had written that she first ■went to the Central Mission Hall to vote, and was informed that she was not on the roll. She next went to High street, where she was told she was on the roll. She lost over half an hour in waiting to vote, and considered the provisions for taking the poll utterly inadequate, especially for the Mayoralty poll. Mr. Glover remarked that Mr. Witheford met with a similar experience. Mrs. Mary Burns, of Brunswick street, South Ward, wrote that she was "engaged all day at the recent election of Mayor," and visited the four polling booths, finding great difficulty in recording her vote for the Mayoralty. She was kept waiting for an hour at St. James' Hall before she could vote, and saw large numbers leave in disgust without voting, because of the insufficient accommodation. A similar letter -was read from Mr. William Richardson, whose description of the accommodation for Mayoral polling was "shamefully inadequate." Mr. Gilmour. who wrote that he had acted as deputy returning officer for many years in the city, volunteered information, but was not present. ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES. A letter from Mrs. Emily Nieol, of Canada street, Newton, offering to give evidence, was read, and she was called. She made some remarkable allegations. She was requested, she said, by Mr. Hansen, the tramway manager, to scrutinise the application papers of electors in connection with Sunday trams. She passed over 3000 papers, and had now come to the conclusion that there had been irregularities. In the first place there were two or three canvassers getting application forms filled who were not electors, and this was illegal. Over 400 application forms were not witnessed by the signatures of the canvassers owing to their not being electors. They were brought in batches to an elector to sign. Therefore the gentleman who signed the application form as having witnessed the signature did not witness it. Mr Glover: I quite agree. Mr Parr: What became of those 400? Witness: They are on the roll. I took one paper to a gentleman who signed all the application forms, and he immediately signed it. Mr Parr: Perhaps you could tell the name of the gentleman? Witness hesitated considerably, but at length mentioned the name of the person who signed the forms, also the name of the canvasser. The Chairman: Did b.3 know the persons? Witness: '-'No, he is so busy all day." She did not think he did 'it with a wrong intention. Mr Parr: Would you think it rijrht to declare to the Town Clerk that, you had seen the applicant sign wnc-n you tad not? Witness: No, I would not think so. to Mr Richardson's case the poor man was brought before the Court time after time for witnessing signatures when he was at the door of houses, while the papers were signed inside. Two other canvassers were appointed for the Tramway Company, and after seme weeks had passed she found that they were not on the roll. She asked Mr Wilson, Town Clerk, if this was right, and was told they ought to be stepped. The men were discharged, and all their papers gone over again. The canvassers were paid so much a hundred for the applications. She thought it would have been wise had Mr Wilson asked each canvasser if he was an elector — he was older and wiser than herself. In regard to the roll stuffing, Mrs Nicol said that when the papers passed \incer her notice it struck her they Avere not right, because she felt that a porter or a domestic servant in an hotel who did Dot pay rent was not entitled to have a vote. She mentioned this to Mr Wilson, who said at once it was roll stuffmg. She was not in a position to keep back the papers, but she would say that Mr Hansen did not wish any name to go upon the roll improperly. The Tram way Company were libelled in being accused of this; she, their employee, was tie person to point it out. Mr Par-: Apparently canvassers were Eot particular so long as they got a name!

Mr Bagnall: The more iiamoas, the more dollars!

Mrs Nicol related an incident of which she had heard: A canvasser going to a well-known hotel in the city and asking the proprietor if he would Le allowed to fill in application forms for his domestics. Permission was given, but as the canvasser, not being an elector, was unable to witness the signatures, the papers were taken to the agent previously named for witnessing. The Chairman: He did not really see the people? Witness: No. The gentleman in tiie hotel remarked at the time that if the canvasser got a sovereign for all the votes in his house, he would have done very well. He was a person who ought to have been expected to know the law. Questioned as to sub-tenants' applications, Mrs Nicol said that not more than a dozen cases came before her, and only one paper was withdrawn. Mr Parr: Then the Tramway Company had 3000 names. Did you sci\itinise all wards? Witness: Yes, excepting the South Ward. Mr Parr: Why not the South Ward? Witness: Because Mr Glover thought it was best I should not. Mr Parr: But what had he to do with it? Witness: "Mr Glover's agent was working for the Tramway Company." fehe added that she did not think Mr v lover would do any roll stuffing. The agent employed by the Tramway Com puny in the South Ward was Mr Ley uon, who put between 700 and SOU names on tue roll, in addition to which uere the ciOOO names wiiicn had gone through her hands. Air Glover: Mr Ley don was the re presentative of Mr Julian, engaged by vie Tramway Company, and was tiie representative of Mr duuan in that par ucuiax electorate. Mrs Nieol, iurtiier questioned, saiu sue was not paid by results neiseii, anu sue did not any unjust motive to Mr Leydu,; in not vvidiniij; her lo supervise tut doulii Ward papers. Mr Glover: He was Mr Jmians special agent. The Chairman: To put people on the roll. Mr Glover: Exactly! Mr Wm. Richardson, who was called next, said that at the Charitable Aid Board the Mayoral vote was taken in a small ante-chamber, and people inside were unable to get out, while others could not get in. Hundreds went away unable to vote, and it was a manifest blunder to take a poll in such a place. Two streams of people met in a narrow passage, and it was difficult for even a man to make his way through. There were similar difficulties and arrangements at the Central Mission Hall. He thought the halls could have been utilised. There was a complete block at St. Benedict's Hall, hundreds going away in the afternoon. The doors were wedged with people, and many voters, after looking at the struggle, preferred not to attempt to vote. At St. Benedict's people would not vote for either Mayor or councillors owing to this reason. Questioned by Mr Ussher, the returning officer, as to his reason for entering a polling booth, the witness said it was because of the singular characters who were there. He received an urgent note from his representative, and went inside the booth at High-street. The atmosphere was "simply brutal," as the officials, despite ladies being present,, were smoking. They laughed at him when he complained. In reply to Dr. Sharman, Mr Richardson said the officials objected to his scrutineer, who was properly appointed. They jeered at him, and for hours prevented him taking his proper position. Mr Richard Hoare, Vincent lane, said he had to complain of the poor facilities, especially for Mayoral voting, at St. James' Hall. The ante-room was too small, and the poll clerks too few. Witness' son, John, had been in Christchurch three years, but was still on the roll, though he had applied to have him taken off. Mr Parr: Why was the name left on the roll if he had not voted for three years? Mr Wilson: Because application was made to have the name kept on. Mr Wilson was questioned as to whether Hoare junior voted in 1900 or 1901, and said he had not. He expected Mr Hoare's application was not maae in writing, and was overlooked. Mr W. A. Smith, living in the Grafton Ward, said he went to vote at St. Benedict's Hall, between a-quarter .'.nj 10 minutes to seven, and it took thi'eaquarters of an hour. The people who wished to find the ballot-box had to push through the crowd, and +here wa.s no privacy where the papers wen marked, The place was dimly lighted, and there was a considerable amount o: Unstring and pushing. A big, good-natured constable was walking up and down directing people to the ballot-box. Mr Parr: If 50 people want to vote before seven o'clock you are bound to admit them? Witness: Yes; but the polling elene should have been given better facilities. Councillor M. Casey said he could tell an interesting story if he could relate hearsay evidence, but this was ruled out. The deputy returning officers at the Central Mission Hall, St. Benedict s, and the Charitable Aid Board offices were present, and volunteered to submit to examination. Mr Casey added that when he visited the houses before the election, he found many names on the roll which he could not discover in reality. He referred to Union-street and Wellington-street. Mr Glover: Because Mr Casey could not find them they must not be on the roll! I can find them! The Chairman: It is not a personal question. Mr Casey said he would like to ventilate the system of the counting of votes. He was not satisfied with it. A scrutineer of his named Goodwin told him he did not take the usual oath. Mr Glover said he saw the man take oath himself, and would produce him. Mr Henry Woollams, deputy returning officer at the Central Mission Hall, atn-eed that the accommodation was cramped, but said there was no crush. Mr Gentle, deputy returning officer at Hifh-street, said in the Mayoral polling there was a slight block at 4 o'clock. A little smoking went on, and perhaps it was not the proper thing. The dispute with Mr Richardson's scrutineer was over his leaving the room, witness statin<* that if he left he should not return. Mr G Huddlestone, deputy returning officer at St. Benedict's Hall for the Mayoral election, considered more police 'supervision would have been better, to control the admission o eleeto "; The question of securing the attendance of another deputy returning officer arose and as it was nearly 10 o'clock the committee, after a sitting of about ; three houre, decided to adjourn unfal i Wednesday ereninj.