The Evening Star THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1906.

Evening Star, Issue 12726, 1 February 1906, Page 4

The Evening Star THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1906.

It has been finally decided that No-license shall be the order of the day rio-lieense at in Invercargill for three Invercargill, years after next June. After the poll on December 6 Prohibition was declared to have been carried by the requisite three-fifths majority with a margin of ten.yotes and a fraction. The representatives d£ th o “'Continuance ” party thought that they were in possession of evHkmoo to, Jnsfcfc-' tiieiaJnfii»-

porting tie validity of the poll according to the prescribed methods, and the case was heard by three magistrates at Invercargill last week. Yesterday the Court delivered a unanimous judgment. As a result of tho magisterial investigations, tho margin of ten votes and a fraction, has been reduced to nine votes—of course, without affecting the material result. Tie decision will not have come as a surprise to those people who had studied the evidence with some knowledge of tie principles upon which the judgment waa likely to be based. The petitioners themselves, wo take it, con 'haixlly have been confident of success, though whore so much was at stake it was only natural that no chance, however slender, should be disregarded. It was not pretended that the general conduct of tho poll had been rm-sa-isfactory. Air Hosting, in opening the case for the petitioners, made certain admissions which wore subsequently referred to by Mr Adams, on behalf of tie respondents, in tie following terms: One fact had become very evident during tho case; that, whatever had happened at previous and other elections, the last poll taken in the Invercargill district _ merited all that was said about it in, his learned friend's opening.. It was an excellently-conducted poll, ■ as iis friend was frank enough to admit, and tlic only wonder was that any attempt at all had been made to dispute it.

These remarks may lie echoed to-day, though without any imputation of blame as regards the action of the petitioners. The state of matters has changed considerably during the last three years. In ISO 3 a good deal of natural irritation was caused by the tactics of the “ trade ” party in the matter of petitions against licensing polls, and tliere was an emphatic demand for an amendment of the law. That amendment lias been secured, and petitioners now have to prove more than was necessary on former occasions. As Mr Hosking observed in his opening speech at Invercargill:

The most material alteration made occurred in reference to what magistrates had to find. Formerly one was confined to the statement of certain, irregularities, and the point to be decided was whether these irregularities tended to defeat the fairness of the poll. Now the duties of the Court were analogous to those to be performed by tho Judges of an Election Petition Court—not as to whether irregularities tended to defeat the fairness of the poll, but whether, in the opinion of the Court, the result of the poll was materially atle'eted.

Still more important is the fact that Parliament has provided for the talcing of a fresh poll in case of the first poll being declared invalid, thus considerably lessening the inducement to try to get a poll upset,at all costs. At Invercargill the allegations of irregularity in connection with the actual taking of the poll may be said to have broken down, with one or two immaterial exceptions; so that the issue really depended upon the view taken by the Court regarding certain charges of irregularity in respect to the method of counting the votes and arriving at the result. We shall not discuss all the points and details, which were somewhat elaborate, but it may be noted that the chief question in dispute was whether the returning officer had acted rightly in admitting certain informal votes, and in rejecting others, for the purpose of ascertaining the total number of votes cast. The Court found that a voter who destroys the efficiency of hig intended vote by some informality cannot be said to have recorded his vote.

What the Legislature- asks is the expression by means of the ballot paper of the will of the electors in respect to certain proposals, and that proposal which expresses the will of a stipulated majority is to be deemed carried. The law disregards the voice of an elector who speaks through an informal ballot, paper, and he therefore cannot be regarded as forming on© of tho total number of voters from whom the prescribed majority is obtained.

The full judicial argument respecting this point and others will be found set forth in the magisterial judgment, which, despite the inevitable elaboration, is lucid enough if one takes the trouble to understand the argumentative process. It is held that the absence of the official seal does not invali-

date a voting paper, failing proof of fraud; and though one or two specific objections to tbo returning officer’s decisions were allowed, the general result was, as has been said, unaffected. Hie fow irregularities that were proved could not have altered the result of the poll. Consequently the petition was dismissed with costs, and, looking at ail the circumstances, there is no cause for regret. We cannot think that the majority of Invercargill electors acted wisely in voting for No-license and sanctioning an experiment of a dubious and perhaps dangerous character; but they were exercising their legal rights, and theirs were alike the ‘power and the responsibility. Deploring their action, we yet have no wish to see it defeated on technical grounds, and it cannot be pretended that the case presented last week on behalf of the petitioners showed any adequate reason for magisterial interference. The social and economic results of the experiment will be awaited with interest and some misgiving.