THE DISPUTED SEAT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume L, Issue 15307, 21 May 1913, Page 4

THE DISPUTED SEAT.

MR. TAYLOR'S POSITION. ; SOLVED BY PREMIER. ELECTION WAS INEVITABLE. The recent decision as a result of which Mr. J. E. Taylor was unseated from the Auckland Harbour Board, was the subject of a long letter received by the Board from Mr.' Taylor yesterday. The writer quoted a letter received from the Prime Minister. Mr. Massey wrote stating that he had obtained the opinion of the Crown law officers upon the question of Mr. Taylor's term of office. ' , ' "It seems," wrote Mr. Massey, "there was an error on the part of one of the officers of the Marine Department, as he says he inadvertently inserted ' Pukekohe ' whore it was intended to use the word 'Otahuhu.' The mistake, he states, arose through a discussion as to which of the two boroughs should be the controlling authority, and he had it in his mind that Pukekohe had been decided upon, whereas . the draft order said Otahuhu. The order, as finally passed in Executive Council, appointed Pukekohe. In the opinion of the Crown Law Office, it is evident that whether the controlling authority was Pukekohe or Otahuhu, the law provided for the election taking place'in the ordinary way. I "The Crown law officers' opinion states as follows: ' Both Pukekohe and Otahuhu are boroughs, and section 8 of the Harbours Amendment Act, 1910, provides that in case of a combined district the principal authority of which is a borough council, the election of a member shall be held on" the day appointed for electing members of borough councils. Hence in either case the election had to be held on the 30th April, 1913. — (Signed) E. T. Redward, May 13, 1913.' Mr. Taylor, in commenting on the matter, said as he had before contended, that in 1911 he was elected for three years, till April, 1914, the Otahuhu Road Board being then the principal authority. He also stated that Mr.' J. G. Rutherford 1 represented exactly the same electorate on the Hospital Board. Otahuhu was the principal authority when he was elected, but Franklin County was made the principal authority last month. The difference in treatment was made apparent by the telegram sent by tho Health Department to the secretary of the Auckland Hospital Board on April 17: "Member for ManuIcau group retains seat until next county election. There has been no alteration of area which he represents, and there seems to be no reason to ro to the expense of a special 'election." This action to retain Mr. Rutherford had been taken even after a candidate had been nominated to contest the seat. i So it apears," continued the letter, "that the Governor, by Order in Council, can terminate a member's time in one case and continue another member in his seat in another, when the conditions are exactly the same. This must be according to the way he is advised. How long will * the people tolerate such work There is no justice in such .autocracy ! And I have no faith in being able' to get it. The Premier presided when both these Orders-in-Council were made, but I question whether he knew of ' their contrary effect at the time, but I am confident that others did. ... I am determined to have these scandalous and one-sided proceedings brought before Parliament, so that the people of this Dominion may. know what a beautiful system of government they live under, and put a stop to such designed injustice." -' . y' .. .-_■ ■ ■, ■ . ;. ; v ' .