CHALLENGED ELECTIONS.

Evening Star, Issue 7360, 4 November 1887, Page 1

CHALLENGED ELECTIONS.

Petitions have been lodged against the return of Mr Hutchinson for Waitetara and Mr Cabboll for the Eastern Maori electoral district, and it is further rumored that the defeated candidate for Egmont is about to question the election of Major Atkinson. It would seem, however, that, unless the initiatory proceedings have been taken, Mr M'Gl'ire is somewhat late in the field, since the Election Petitions Act requires that every petition must be presented, except under special circumstances to be hereafter noted, by delivery to the Returning Officer within twenty-eight days from the declaration of the poll. It may not be with ■ out interest to explain what the law is in respect to " corrupt" or " illegal practices " at elections, and how very severe are the penalties which may attach to conviction. There is a broad line drawn, it may be premised, between " illegal" and "corrupt" practices. The expression " corrupt practice," as used in the Act, is interpreted to mean treating, bribery, undue influence, or personation. The first three are defined in so comprehensive a measure as to include, we should suppose, every possible way in which an elector may be either treated, bribed, or unduly influenced. Election petitions, our readers no doubt are aware, are tried before two Judges of the Supreme Court, and it is their function to determine whether the member whose election is petitioned against, or any and what other person, was duly elected and returned, or whether the election was void. Where a charge is made of any corrupt practice, the Judges are to report in writing to the Speaker whether any corrupt practice has or has not been proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge and consent of any candidate, and the nature of such practice; and also whether corupt practices have in their opinion extensively prevailed. If the report is to the effect that any candidate has been personally guilty of corrupt practices, his election, if he has been elected, is ipso facto void, and he is not capable for three years of being elected for the same district, nor of sitting in the House during the continuation of the Parliament. If reported to have been guilty through his agents, his election becomes void, and he cannot sit for the same district during the three years next ensuing. A person, whether he has been a candidate or not, who commits any corrupt practice, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction or indictment, is liable to be fined any sum not exceeding £4OO, and is not capable, for a period to be specified by the presiding Judge in the Criminal Court, of being registered as an elector or holding any public or judicial office. "Illegal practices " cover, in their definition, a very wide field. Certain employments at times, and in connection more or less directly with elections, contravene the Aci, and bring both employer and employed under the penal clauses. Then, again, certain expenditure is defined to be technically "illegal," and this includes any payment for the purpose of procuring the election of a candidate at any election, with the exceptions authorised in the schedules to the Act—i.e., the personal expenses of the candidates, the expenditure on printing, advertising, stationery, postage, telegrams, and of holding public meetings. Further expenses are allowed to be incurred "in respect of miscellaneous matters," but this must not exceed £25, nor, of course, come within the scope of either corrupt or illegal practices. Upon the trial of an election petition, in which illegal practices are complained of, the Election Court has to report to the Speaker whether the candidate has been guilty by his agents of any illegal practice, and if any such has been proved to have been committed with the knowledge and consent of any candidate, that candidate, the Act declares, shall not be capable of being elected to a sitting in the House during the three years after the report, and his election (if he has been elected) shall be void. If the report is that ■ he has been guilty through his agents, he will not be capable of being elected to, or sitting in, the House for the same district during the Parliament. The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act 1880, Amendment Act 1882, constitutes "illegal practice" a misdemeanor as well as "corrupt practice," but the fine to be imposed in connection is not to exceed £IOO. Jt will be seen, therefore, that both corrnpt and illegal practices entail personal as well as political penalties, and that these are of a very stringent nharacter. In the event of the Election Court reporting that a sitting member, personally or through his agents, has been guilty of either, lie loses his seat through the voiding of his election. This does not, however, give the seat to the candidate next on the poll; but a writ is required to be issued for a fresh election. In 1881 the Election Court, on trial of a petition, reported that an illegal practice, with the knowledge and consent of the candidate who was returned for Stanmore, had been committed, and that he had not been duly elected, and that the election must be void. The late Mr Pilliet, it may be recollected, was exempted from all penal consequences by Statute, on the ground that the illegal act committed was of a purely technical character; but a fresh election took place, which resulted in his being again returned. The only charge proved in this case was, it may be interesting to note, the engagement of an elector as secretary to the committee. It was affirmed by the petitioner that there was a promise of future payment. This the respondent (Mr Pilliet) denied, and stated that he did not even know that the person employed was an elector. The Court, however, concluded that there had been " a clear understanding for payment," but expressed themselves satisfied that the respondent, in entering into the engagement he did, was not aware that he was transgressing the Act. The Court refused to make any order as to costs, holding that the time of the Court had been taken up in trying charges which were not substantiated. These referred to various alleged corrupt and illegal practices. The Election Court, it may be noted, have full discretion as to the costs, charges, and expenses of and incidental to the presentation of a petition, and may order these to be defrayed by the parties to the petition in such manner and. proportion as they, the Judges, may determine ; regard being had to vexations conduct, unfounded allegations, or unfounded objections on the part either of the petitioner or the respondent; and also to the discouragement of any needless expense by throwing the burden of defraying the same on the parties by whom it has been caused, whether such parties are or are not on the whole successful. Indictments for "corrupt" or "illegal practice" must be tried in the Supreme Court, and the Court may order payment to the prosecutor of such costs and expenses as shall appear to have been reasonably incurred in and about the conduct of the prosecution. Election petitions must, in the ordinary course, as stated above, be presented within twenty-eight days after the day on which the returning officer has declared the candidate duly elected; but there is an exception made in the case where a petition questions the return or election on an allegation of corrupt practices, and specifically alleges payment of money or other reward to have been made by any member, or on his account, or with his privity, since the declaration of the poll, in which case the petition may be presented within twenty-eight days after the date of such payment. It will be seen that in all cases of "corrupt" or "illegal practice," where either practice is reported by the Election Court to have been committed, the election becomes void. When petitions, however, against a return are based on other grounds, such as that the sitting member, did not actually obtain the majority of valid votes, the presiding Judges may certify to the effect that some other person .was duly returned or elected, and"a' fresh election is thus rendered unnecessary. It is sufficiently olear that the attempt to dktrirb ajf election

is a matter not to be attempted rashly. The StToners have, in the fin* instance to Uvea good bond for £2OO, or.deposit that f mount with the Returning Officer, and are liable in the event of even partial failure to very heavy expenses. In the btanmore case although the election was declared void, the petitioners were mulcted to the extent of several hundred pounds.