THE OHINEMURI LOCAL OPTION POLL.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLIII, 5 February 1909, Page 2

THE OHINEMURI LOCAL OPTION POLL.

THE INQUIRY ADDRESS BiTmR" SKFKEETT. THE SliCiltevr OF THE BALLOT. [UiHtbo Pnsss Association.] WAIHI, Thursday. When the Court of inquiry into (he OhißeffiCfi lieensiug poll resumed this morning Mr Sk'crret.*, counsel for the I petitioners, addressed the Oottft in reply to Mr Adams. He commenced by saying that he agreed that the result ol tfi« inquiry might prove of serious consequence. ACeftrding to the case for the respondents tiiefe wei's sentimental and moral interests of the Net-license party at stake against the inhimtMSfl 6% many places of. business in which great sums , we're But the case for the petitioners was their desire to have the matter agflirt referred to the people. The no-Jicens*\ ,people wanted to uphold a poll which was admittedly irregular. He contended that the vital principle involved was the complete absence of everything that guarded the secrecy of the voters. Counsel went oil to affirm that, in short, the questions at issue were: — Is there id be, hO limit to the irregularities committed ih connection wlth> suoli election? Was this Court, he asked, merely a Court of Appeal With functions only affecting either the striking off or adding on of votes? The essential provision of the Act was to safeguard the secrecy of the ballot, and he would show that they had in this instance been flagrantly find substantially violated. Referring to the provisions of the Act regarding the admission of only six voters into the booth, he pointed out that the object was to provide an atmosphere untainted by influence and conditions for ab-: solute secrecy. He also reviewed section 116 of the Act regarding the construction of booths. If his friends' were correct, then only six voters should have been admitted to the hboth at a time. Counsel went on to argue at length as to the respectivo responsibilities of tile deputy-returning officers and to the motive of the Act which shewed that each returning officer was responsible for his respective number of billot papers, and should be in a position to check his used and untSsed papers, which, in the present case, ooiild not have been d.me under the a) rangements that 70, 80 and 90 persons had been admitted. Coming to_ Ine question of secrecy, he emphatically denied that it was not the duty of ihe returning officer to provide reasonable and adequate precautions for secret voting. He submitted that each one ~f the rrovisions for the preservation of tlie secrecy of the ballot had leen flagrant' v an-1 substantially violated during times when the greater number of votes wer; being rast. He wonld rely on the doctrine as set fortfi in 1 Wo-dwaid and Fms-ons, and in the Islington case, that an election, to be valid, would have to be carried out really and substantially under the provisions of tbe Act If there was no valid election, he submitted that there could be no result, and the Court was absolved from considering the question of the number of votes. This argument had not been m°t by Mr Adams. The Akaroa case was not a case where it was suggested that the election had not leen conducted according to the Act, but that a number of persons had been prevented from recording votes, thus affecting the result. Referring to bis friend's remark that no poll had been upset since 1904, he wonld venture to ■ssy that never in the history of the statute had sudi disregard been shown for iho provisions of the Act. Each case, he contended, bad to stand on it 1 own merits. Coming to the facts of the present case, he submitted that the returning officer had grossly failed in making adequate provisions for voting. The watchword of the day was "Let 'em all come!" Who, hrf asked was ir. the best position to notice tli« icotnduct of the poll? A voter who came in a hurry to vote was not in i proper position to observe, but the officials, who were undoubtedly in the best position to fay. All the witnesses for the petitioners went to corroborate the evidence as to th^ nnmbers admitted. Commenting in the evidence for ths respondents, conn*e! contended that the evidence of Mr Nathan corroborated that of the petitioners as to the numbers admitted. Other official witnesses for the respondent were also quoted in enrroboration. "Could one wish," commented counsel, "a more emphatic corroboration of the petitioners' evidence in this respect?" Still, if such corroboration had not been forthcoming he would be prepared to rely upon the fact that new compartments had to be erected and people were cent over to the east end of the booth. Beside the general complaints and the fact that the returning officer had to give out papers, what could naturally be expected in the case of booths designed for the admission of six when up to 90 voters were admitted? Such conditions set up the opportunity for the expression of views, especially in connection with those strongly in favour of no-license. Was it not to be expected that under such conditions Woters would compar.-y their .papers, and they had evidence to that effect Counsel then quoted copious evidence to show that proper secrecy could hot be observed. He also commented in connection with the corroborated fact that voters were on certain occasions overJk>oked whilst recording their votes, and as regarded the general disorder prevalent in the booths. Evidence was also quoted to show that remarks were made in connection with the striking out of the top line and that the Rev. Mr White was seen conversing with ladies. Counsel, continuing his argur ment, pointed out that the same remark al&o applied to tbo Rev. Mr Wrigley, another official. Counsel stated that the admissions made by the witness for the respondents fully corroborated the evidence for the petitioners. He went on to submit.that the evidence of Constable Driscoll concluded the matter, and referred to what counsel termed "the unjustifiable comments by Mr Adams." The constable's action, he considered, was the only action an honest man could adopt in the face of his refusal to give evidence, in the first place, and in the face of the questions asked him during his first examination. Counsel considered that the constable had shown great courage in giving the evidence he had. It was also a fact that a certain section of the community - always" credited wrong and improper motives to those who were against then* — in' fact, termed them "liars." Mr Sker T ret* concluded with a great peroration, contending tbatpthe secrecy* ofthe ballot had been violated beyond all possible doubt. The Court reserved its decision tillthe Ist March next.