Correspondence.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XV, Issue 70, 29 November 1856, Page 2

Correspondence.

To the Editor of the 'Nelson Examinee'

Sir — I have read with astonishment the statements made in the leading article in your paper of this day's date; firstly, "that the votes in the Amuri district were all given in total ignorance of the names of the candidates;" and secondly, "that from this circumstance the Chief Returning Officer feels some difficulty about returning Mr. Robinson as duly elected, and that probably the validity of the election would be a question which the principal law officer of the colony would be called upon to decide." Were the first statement correct, it would not fail to excite surprise that any poll should have taken place at all in the Amuri district ; and still further surprise that the votes there given should have so completely tallied in their direction with those given in the other pastoral districts of the province. I believe the sentence would have stated the fact correctly, had it been worded as follows : — "that the votes in the Amuri district had been given in ignorance that Mr. Robinson was a candidate."

In reference to the second statement which I have quoted, the question arises, how would the circumstances of the Amuri case, as stated by me, affect the validity of the election, even if they could be proved ? I venture to reply to my own question, that they would not affect it at all. In discussing this question, the point to arrive at is this : Whose duty is it to make the electors acquainted with the names of the candidates ?

You assume, without argument, that this duty is imposed upon the Principal Returning Officer ; but how do you prove your assumption ? ■*

Is there anything in the Regulations imposing such a duty upon him ? If so, I cannot, without assistance, find it out, and should like to have it pointed out to me. Is it by analogy to the practice in England ? I have searched diligently through all the Acts of Parliament now in force relating to elections for the House of Commons, and have not found that such a duty is imposed upon Returning Officers there. I have moreover read attentively " Cox's Treatise on the Law and Practice of Elections," and find nothing to justify such an assumption. The duty of the Principal Returning Officer appears to me to be confined to providing the necessary machinery for carrying on the election in a proper, orderly, and efficient manner ; but it is left to the candidates themselves to make known their pretensions to the electors, and to the electors themselves to find out who are the candidates.

But even admitting, for argument's sake, that the circumstances as stated by you would, if proved, affect the validity of the election ; how can they be proved ? The messenger announcing that Mr. Robinson was a candidate never reached the Amuri !

Is this the ouly proof of the total ignorance of the electors ?

Would the principal law officer of the colony be justified in advising the Goveraor to treat the election as null and void upon any such loose data? . Nousverrons; but I cannot help thinking that the Attorney-General will stare at such a monstrous proposition. Now, setting aside the law of the question, I think it very unwise to raise up any such

device, in order to evade the result of the election :—: — Firstly — Because it deprives the Government of the province, for a still longer period, of its legitimate head. Secondly — Because all acts done in the meantime by the Deputy-Superintendent, will have a very doubtful validity. And, Thirdly — Because it will be looked upon in the light of persecution, which will inevitably strengthen Mr. Robinson's party, and thereby tend to fix us, for an indefinite period, with an inefficient Superintendent. I am, &c, W. T. L. Travers. Selwyn-place, Nov. 2G.

P. S. I may add, that it appears to me that the Chief Returning Officer ought to have returned Mr. Robinson as duly elected, stating, if he thought it necessary, the special circumstances as regards the Amuri poll, but leaving it either to Doctor Monro or to the electors to dispute the validity of the return.