AUCKLAND NORTH ELECTION—HOW THE SEAT WAS WON.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 8073, 14 October 1887, Page 3

AUCKLAND NORTH ELECTION—HOW THE SEAT WAS WON.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l am this day in receipt of counsel's opinion as to the legality of the above election, and from it I give the following extract:—" The irregularities named are so numerous and so serious, that it is difficult to see how the election can be sustained." In justice to the large number of electoral who voted for me, and to the gentlemen who so kindly exerted themselves on my behalf, £ think it is only right to make the following facts public. (There are many others equally damaging that I could also give):—As this was my first election, I asked the returning officer for information as to my position and privileges. Among other things, he informed me that I had no right to be in the polling booth, and consequently I was not there at any time during the day. He also informed me that, as there was only one booth, I could not demand a scrutiny. This I am not surprised at, as the Act is very obscure, and a well-known legal gentleman, whom I consulted the morning after the poll, gavethe same opinion. I now find out that both were wrong; and that, if I had been rightly advised, I could, and certainly should, have demanded a scrutiny, and in that case there is every reason to believe Mr. Thompson's position and mine would have been reversed. The Act provides that not more than six; electors shall be in a polling booth at the same time; but on this occasion, at the opening of the poll, some van loads of halfdrunken men were driven up. These men were supposed to rush the booth, and for a long time— am told over two hours— was a large number of people inside. So far as I can learn, the police made no effort to clear the booth, nor were they ordered! to do so by the Returning Officer. The act prescribes that at the olose of the poll the Returning Officer shall count the votes, but at this poll the Returning Officer emptied the two ballot boxes on to the middle of a table, and then the four scrutineers and two ticket clerks proceeded! to sort and count them, each helping himself as he pleased. After they were said to be sorted, the pile for Vaile was first placed in the centre of the table to be counted. All hands helped themselves as before. Messrs. Chappell and Loogbottom counted in fifties, and the rest in tens and then made them into fifties. These fifties and the odd numbers were afterwards counted by the Returning Officer and the poll clerks, but the papers were not checked by him to see that -they were correctly sorted. Each of the six sorters rejected any vote he was pleased to con* aider an informal one. This probably accounts for the large number (thirty-six). Surely this is a curious method of taking a vote by ballot. What was to prevent either side from placing a number of his opponent's papers among his own, taking care, of course, to leave a few of the right ones on the top ? It was just the sort of game at which the most unscrupulous would win. Or, again, what was to prevent any number of papers being either placed in or abstracted? As I write a duly numbered and stamped voting paper lies before me. The names of Fnrnall and Thompson are erased, and I naturally want to know how many similar papers are out of their proper position, The fact that so heavy a pol r (1487) was declared in less than an hour after the closing of the booth, proves that the papers could not have been properly sorted and counted. lam advised that my only remedy now is by election petition, and that will cost from £200 to £300. For the pre. sent I content myself with placing the matter before the public.—l am, &c, Samuel Vaile. Auckland, October 10, 1887.