TO THE KDITOB. Sir —ln your leading article under the above heading you state that "Mr Sta.tli.ini should have been declared duly elected on the night of December 10." In making such a statement you overlook tho fact that in one booth 116 electors ((implied with the law in every respect as far as they were concerned ; but at the latest recount the Magistrate (rightly or wrongly) disfranchised those 116 duly qualified electors who did their duty, as you say. Sixty-nine of those electors voted for Mr Mimro and 47 for Mr Stathnm—a. majority of 22 for Mr Monro. \i those papers were lightly declared to lie informal, surely it cannot lie a question of Mr Statham choosing to resign. He certainly has not the support of the majority of the electors of Dnnedin Central, who east their votes hone.-.tly, and, as far as they were concerned, formally. It m'imiis me that if those 116 voters are disfranchised through no fault of their own the election .-hould be, declared null and void. A'cry few people will ~re any reasou under the circumstances to congratulate Mr Statham on tho peculiar position that has arisen : a far greater number will sympathise with Mr Mttnro.— I am, etc., A.V EI.KCTOn IN DINI'.DIS Ckntu.u.. December 24. iWe have received aweral letters of tho tenor of the above. '• Liberal," for example, docs not opine that Mr Statham. being ;i man of honor, will seek to usurp a seat that belongs to his opponent, seeing that the hitter is being punished for the blunder of a, deputy-returning otikvr. U he tines, he will have anything but a, pleasant reception when he next appears before tin l e ! ecto-s of Dune-din Central Mr George. S. Thomson characteri.-es as "lankest of sophistries" our contention that the returning oilier ought at the lirst count to have rejected those 116 invalid votes. Well, that, i-gja matter of opinion, of oiuw; and tiie .Fudges will be tailed upon to decide whether Nil- Maxwell was ric;ht ill the, lirst instance, and wrong in the third. Oliviou.-ly he ..innot be right in all three. Mr TLoiiimju goes on to drau- attention to another and vqiudiy glaring informality, which may or may not invalidate the, election. He says, that "every voting paper issued to members of the Expeditionary Force, had openly marked on the back of the same the consreutive number, which, when compared with the. block or 'butt' retained by the deputy-returning officer, showed that the bitter contained the consecutive number, the roll number, and also the name of the voter, demonstrating exactlv how each person voted. Not only v.as this the system adopted in 1914 in issuing voting papers to the Expeditionary Force, but. it was also the system adopted by the "Ward Ministry for" the whole of the 1911 tieetio:;." Ho further n-.-ei latitat as a cousequeiu-e of the system so adopted, without the people of the Dominion being aware, of the fact, it v.as possible to ascertain how every Civil servant and every public oilieer voted. 'lll--' ir.-t of Mr Thomson's letter is couched m a. partisan spirit, as are several of the other communications we ha.ve received.— Ed. E.S.I
Permanent link to this item
UNSATISFACTORY ELECTION., Evening Star, Issue 15685, 26 December 1914
UNSATISFACTORY ELECTION. Evening Star, Issue 15685, 26 December 1914
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.