THE ELECTORAL INQUIRY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12238, 6 April 1903, Page 6

THE ELECTORAL INQUIRY.

CHARGES AGAINST THE REGISTRAR. THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. CONCLUSION OF THE EVIDENCE. The Commission, consisting of Mr. W. R. Haselden, S.M. (chairman), and Mr. Hugh Pollen (Under-Secretary for the Colonial Secretary's Department), which has been set up to inquire into various charges laid against Mr. John King (registrar of electors at Auckland), continued its sittings at the Supreme Court on Saturday. Mr. J. R. Reed, and with him Mr. A. Peak, appeared for the persons preferring the charges agaiust the registrar. Mr. King appeared in person. Geo. J. Garland, general secretary of Mr. Masefield's committee at the last election, was' called in reference to the circumstances connected with the occasion of the issue of the writs. He said ho went to the office about noon on November 12 to lodge some claims, but Mr. King refused to receive them on the ground that the writs were issued. He was positive that he did not leave the claims in the registrar's office, but he did not remember whether he tore them up there or took them away with him. He knew nothing whatever of Mrs. Chatfield's claim. By Mr. Reed: Witness kept a list of the claims lodged, in order to check the registrar. At the previous election, he had one or two passages-at-arms with Mr. King, but the latter, who had a better knowledge of the electoral law than witness had, generally came out "top of the he-ap." Witness thought it would he as well to have a check on Mr. King on "this occasion, but all the names lodged bv him were enrolled. J. 11. 'Walters, J.F., who said he had lived in the district since 184-8, gave evidence as to assisting Mr. King in dealing with several hundreds of names on the old Parnell and Eden rolls, when the new Eden roll and the Grey Lynn roll were compiled, after the readjustment of boundaries. Witness had an extensive local knowledge of the district dealt with. Several doubtful cases were met with, and these were put on one side. On examining the rolls when they came out witness found that soma of the names which should have been on the Eden roll were on the Grey Lynn roll, and vice versa. Some of these were names in regard to which ho had advised Mr. King. By Mr. Reed : On going through the names all those persons whose residence was-stated simply as "Victoria Avenue," were put on the Grey Lynn roll, as witness" only knew of one Victoria Avenue, viz., that in Eden Terrace, and within the Grey Lynn district. He had since learned that there was a Victoria Avenue in the Eden district. No list was made of the streets in any of the electorates. Witness was assisted by a plan of the boundaries in going through the rolls. Mr. Reed rend a letter from Mr. W. Richardson, stating that the Auckland Temperance Crusaders had written to Mr. King "asking him to exhibit outside hi 3 office a list of expunged names, but the registrar paid no attention to the request. The writer stated that he had also written to the Herald on the subject. Mr. King said the correspondence had already been put in.

MR, KING CONTINUES HIS EVIDENCE. Mr. King then continued his evidence, which had be/en commenced on the previous day. In answer to Mr. Hasolden, ho stated that, he did not know where lie got Mrs. Chatfield's claim from, but he reiterated that ho did not accept any claims after the issue of the writs. The memo, written by him on the claim, viz., " received after," was' an incomplete one, and ho must have been disturbed when writing it. He thought Mr. G. M. Johnston's name had been put on the Grey Lynn instead of the Eden roll at the lime of'going through tho rolls with Mr. Wallers. He had an indistinct recollection of the Caley case, but when it first arose he understood that the matter would be amicably settled between Mr. Alex. Thorne and Mr. Kevon. There had clearly been an error in Mrs. Mcleod's case. He had nothing further to, say regarding the case of Miss Amelia Lnwson. He frequently placed mmes on the roll without a signed claim. This would be done when he was well acquainted with the persons. _ Owing to .the large number of claims which came in at the last moment he had to exercise the power given to him under section 35 of the Act, to reject claims, and in many instances subsequent inquiries and police reports showed that his action was.justified. Tie produced a number of papers in reference to the charge for supplying advance proof-sheets of the printed rolls, which had cropped up on Friday. "When the contracts for printing the rolls were signed witness made an arrangement in each case for extra copies, and stated that he would pay for them. He did this as a friendly act towards those interested and without any hope of benefiting personally to the extent of a sixpence.' Mr. Spragg had an advance copy of the Grey Lynn roll as well as of the Eden roll, and in accordance with an arrangement; witness paid £1 10s to a special assistant to obtain special information asked for by Mr. Spragg. Sj By Mr. Reed: When the new boundaries were announced no lists were made of streets with similar names, or streets likely to be affected by the changes. Mr. Reed: What was done when streets in different electorates bore the same name to see. that names were properly enrolled? Witness said the newspapers were requested to direct the attention of persons interested to these matters. Witness, continuing under cross-examina-tion, said he was T>res (> nt when th© charge against Gilbert Wilfred Spragg, of molting a false declaration as to age. was heard and dismissed. The case did not last —probably less than half an hour. Ho swore absolutely tTiat Snrr.gT's second application for enrolment came into the office with several others on the. evening of November 10. He discovered the irregularity in the claim the same evening. Tie could not say whv the claim was ticked and initialled by him— probably it was through inadvertence, or perhaps it was done before he discovered thai; there was a reason for objection to the claim. In a few cases claims for enrolment were treated as transfers. He could give no general answer 'yhy he should treat claims for enrolment as transfers in some cases and not in others. In many cases be accepted claims for enrolment without them being signed. He put P. G. Andrew on the roll on an unsigned form, ■filled in by his (witness'! son, who was one of the assistants in the ofTice.

Mr. Rr-ed : And did you think a form of this kind submitted by an assistant was a sufficient reason for nutting a name on the roll? Witness: I had no reason, for supposing (hilt h<* would try to mislead mo. Mr. Reed : Have yon, since Mr. Andrew stated in evidence that he made no application for enrolment, made inquiries as to how the claim came to be nut in? Witness: Mo, I have'not. Continuing, witness said he was now satisfied that Mr. G. M. Johnston was entitled, after the subdivision of districts, to bo on the Eden roll. F<- told Mr. Johnston that he would not put him on the Eden roll without an order of the Court or an apology for abuse and threats used towards witness. Mr. Reed: If Mr. Johnston had apologised would you have put him on the roll for that election ? Witness: I would have looked into the matter. Mr. Reed: And if satisfied would you have then placed him on the roll. Witness : Yes. Mr. Reed : Then you take up this position, Mr. King, that if in your opinion a person insults you you have a right to deprive him of his franchise? Witness :I do not say that. Mr. Johnston was already on one roll. Mr. Reed: Could Mr. Johnston have clone anything mors short of an apology to satisfy you in the matter? Witness: I could not say. Mr. Reed then questioned witness regarding Mrs. Chatfield's claim. Mr. King said the memo. "received after" may have been intended, when completed, to read that it was received after a particular hour. He could not point to any other claim bearing a memo, of this kind. He swore in the Police Court that he did not receive any claims after about eleven a.m. on November 11. • Now that he knew the telegram announcing the issue of the writs was not received till November 12 he transferred his statement as to the hour from the 11th to the 12th. THE ISSUE OF THE WRITS. ' Mr. Reed: Will you swear that you did not receive the telegram before half-past nine a.m. on the 12th? " Witness: Yes, I will. Mr. Reed : Were you out of the office that morning? Witness: I could not say. Mr. Reed: What time do you say you received the telegram? Witness: I should say it was between eleven a.m. and- a quarter-past eleven am The time of delivery is not noted on the telegram. ' Mr. Reed: Were you in the office from eleven to a quarter-past? Witness: I could not say. . Mr. Reed: Were you in the office when the telegram came? Witness.: I could not say. I may have been there or I may have been upstairs.

Mr. Reed: Were you in your own office when you received the telegram? Witness: I believe so. Mr. Reed: Then you don't remember the facts ' surrounding the receipt of the telecram? " Witness: No. Mr. Reed: As a matter of fact, Mr. King, were you not in the Police Court in connection with Spragg's case that morning from half-past ten till about half-past eleven? Witness: I was in the Court, but I could not say how long I was there. I believe the Court was late in starting. Mr. Reed : It would not be possible, would it for the Court to start at half-past ten, deal with a number of undefended cases, then the defended case against Spragg.and for you to wait till it was over, and bo back at your office by eleven-o'clock? Witness: It would not be impossible. Mr. Reed: Had you not received the teleTain'as to the writs before you went to the Court that morning? Witness : I am almost certain that I diet not ' OTHER MATTERS. Witness was examined in regard to the claim of Edward Ross Campbell, and he said he was now satisfied that an error had been made in this case. Mr. Reed: Can you point to a single instance in which you placed a name on the roll on an unsigned form at the request of Mr. Speckling, Mr. Fowlds, or anyone from their offices? Witness: I cannot remember whether 1 did or not. Mr. Reed: Did you ever tell Mr. Speckling or any member of his party that their claims were "being rejected on account of being on wrong forms? Witness: No; I do not know that I did. They were supposed to know the lav/. Witness was asked why ho did not enrol certain persons whose names had been mentioned during previous stages of the inquiry, and his replies were similar to those given in tho course of his cross-examination of the witnesses in support of the charges. He did not remember telling Mr. Jenkins that he would not allow any erasures to be made on the roll. He may have told Mr. Cromarty that by placing his name on the roll would necessitate 2000 or 3000 additional entries. If ho fold Mr. Cromarty that he would be better off by romaining on tho City roll, as he would have three votes there instead of one, ho did not say it seriously. MR. KING'S COUNTER-CHARGES. Mr. Rued: When Mr. Spedding was in tho box you made cross-charges against him of attempting to stuff tho rolls. • What were your grounds for this charge? Witness: The finding of so many papers disclosing attempts at double registration. This applies to Messrs. White, Harle, and Hare as well. Mr. Reed : Was that the only ground? Witness : Yes; I consider it an ample ground, too. Mr. Reed : What do you mean by papers disclosing attempts at double registration ? Witness : The lodging of duplicate claims. Mr. Reed: Do you mean by duplicates the putting in of two claims or tho putting in of one claim in cases in which the applicants wero already on the roll applied for or another roll? Witness : Principally the latter. Mr. Reed: Do you know of any cases in which two claims were put in for any person by Mr. Spedding for the same electorate? "Witness: There may have been some, but I cannot say now whether there were any. Mr. Haselden: We arc not trying your client, Mr. Reed. Mr. Reed : No ; but the allegation has been made, and I wish to disprove it. Witness, in answer to further questions, said he did not accuse Mr. Spedding and his party of wilful attempts to mislead, but if they had taken more pains in checking the claims before they brought them to the office it would have saved a great deal cf trouble. ' Mr. Reed : That seems to knock the bottom out of the whole thing. Do you then withdraw your charge against Mr. Spedding of wilfully attempting to stuff tho rolls? Witness: I do not accuse Mr. Spedding of wilfully attempting to stuff the rolls, but his want of eire tended to mislead me. Mr. Reed: Did you ever request Mr. Spedding to bo more careful in regard to the chocking of tho claims? Witness: Yes, frequently. THE OFFICIAL DATE STAMP. Mr. Reed: Did the Government supply you with a date stamp for dating the claims as they came in? Witness: Y^s. Mr. Reed: Why did you not use it? Witness: The subordinates were probably in fault in not always carrying out instructions. Mr. Reed: Was the stamp ever used ? Witness : Yes. THE ADVANCE SHEETS OF ROLLS. Mr. Reed: Was the money paid for advance sheets of the printed rolls paid into the public account? Witness: No. Mr. Reed: Was the payment to the printers made out of the public account? Witness: No; the whole matter was a private transaction. Mr. Reed: Did you make any personal profits out of these advanced (meets? Witness: No, Ido not think so. Mr. Reed: Surely you must know? Witness: I may have got the benefit of any discount. Mr. Reed: I ask you, Mr. King, did you get any profit out of the sale of these advance sheets? Mr. King: Until' I get Mr. Wilkinson's account I cannot tell you. Mr. Reed: What wero you paid for the adva.noe sheet, roughly? Witness: I cannot toll you if you will ask me any questions as to whom I got money from I will tell you. Mr. Reed: These advanco sheets were simply slips pulled from tho type set up for the roll's, were they not? Witness: I cannot say. I never interfered in the matter. I gave my instructions to the juniors and Mr. Makgill, who had most to do with the matter, could tell you mfore about it. I think they wore such slips as you say, stitched together. Mr. Reed : Did you charge Mr. Spragg £4for these advance sheets? Witness: No.

Mr. Reed read the first letter sent on the subject to Mr. King by Mr. Spragg, in which the latter said he understood the sum of £4was clue by him to the Department. Witnoss: It was not due to the Department. It was ray intention to send Mr. Spragg a full' account when I got the other account still to come from Mr. WilTdnson. I looked upon it as a trust matter. - • Mr. Reed said he did not know what the Commissioners thought, but it seemed very evident that the witness was fencing. Mr. Haselden said he did not see that the matter came within the scope of the Commission. "Whether Mr. Pollen would take any notice o! it as a Departmental matter, he could not Bay, but he really did not see that, it concerned the present inquiry. Mr. Pollen agreed that the matter had nothing to do with the object of the inquiry. Witness: The production of the correspondence is a most dishonourable act. The matter was a friendly one between Mr. Spragg and myself. Mr. Reed: It was to be kept an entire secret then? Witness: There was no secrecy about the matter, but it was non-official, and why it should be dragged forward now I do not know. Mr. Reed asked whether the Commissioners ruled that the matter did not concern the inquiry? Mr. Haselden said that as the cross-exami-hation had gone so far it might as well be completed, but he repeated that the matter did not appear to come within the scope of th© Commission- and he pointed out .that it was not indicated in the charges formulated against Mr. King. Mr. Reed : We were not aware of it, Your Worship. When the official cashbook was produced to show that certain payments had been made on certain dates, I looked for an entry of the £6 10s paid by Mr. Spragg, but ; could not find it. It was stated byMr. Sped- ' ding in his evidence that he saw copies of the City roll in other persons' hands before he ■ got a copy, and it now seems that there were a large number of advance copies. • Mr. Haselden: Whether the arrangement was right or wrong I am not able to say. Some people may think that there is no harm at all in getting* these advance copies. Mr. Reed: Surely there was something wrong if Mr. King received something like £4 for these copies? Mr. Haselden: I do not know whether it would be wrong or not. Mr. King is not a Civil servant, and that may make a difference. I do not see how the question of whether he received this money can affect your clients. Mr. Reed: If we can show that secret profits are made in the registrar's office, that would be a fact which may have influenced th* election. Mr. Haselden: If I found an officer in my office making any profit out of matters connected with his duties I think I would suspend him forthwith and report him, but Mr. King is not in a similar position. So far we have not been told whether any money was received by Mr. King, but there is an indication that there may have been a discount, or something of the kind. Mr. Reed (to witness): Have you any idea what you paid any printer for these advance copies? . . , Witness: The best reply I can give to that is that if you are not satisfied with the documents produced you had better ask the chairman to summon the printers as witnesses. '■.:••.• :'.;, ; ~/■ ■'■'~ , ', '

Mr. Reed: Cannot you answer the question? Witness: I have answered it. I produce one of the receipted accounts — Mr. Haselden: Say whether you will or you wont. "Witness: I cannot say for the moment. Mr. Reed: Did you sell advance copies of the rolls to candidates? ■ Witness: If you will mention any names I will tell von. Mr. Reed: Did you sell any to Mr. Baume? Witness: Yes. Mr. Reed: What did he pay? Witness: I think it -was 30s. Mr. Haselden: For how many copies? Witness: I could not say. Mr. Reed: Was the £6 paid in connection with Mr. Spragg's letters paid into your private account? Witness: Yes, it was. Mr. Haselden: Do you wish to say any more now, Mr. King? Witness: No, sir. This being all the evidence Mr. Reed asked for an adjournment till Tuesday, in order that he might peruse the evidence before addressing the Commission. Mr. Haselden said this would be inconvenient to the Commissioners, but the request was agreed to, and the Commission accordingly adjourned until half-past ten a.m. tomorrow.