THE ARMSTRONG COMMISSION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1680, 11 May 1904, Page 2

THE ARMSTRONG COMMISSION.

MR BOYNTON’S REPORT

Mr J. W. Poynton,- Public Trustee, the Commissioner set up to inquire into certain charges made against Messrs A. and It. It. Armstrong, Returning Officer and Registrar of Electors respectively of the' Wairarapa ©ieetoraite. has presented his report. Dealing with the charges against Mr A. Armstrong, the Commissioner states : —A Licensing'Committee election was held in March, 1897. The Returning Officer, having learned that two of the candidates were shareholders in a distributing company, registered under the Companies Acts, which was the holder of a wholesale license under the Licensing Act, 1881, rejected their nominations, believing that the ownership of these shares disqualified the holders from membership of the Licensing Committee. In this belief he was wrong, and the election was declared 1 void on petition through has refusal to> accept the nominations. The election having been rendered nugatory through his action, the County Council refused to pay his expenses as Returning Officer. The Returning Officer commenced legal proceedings to compel paly men t of his claim, but was unsuccessful. The Commissioner found:—(l) That the expenses incurred by the Returning Officer were fair and reasonable and the County Council .should pay all un - settled 1 claims arising out of the said election, in accordance with the scale fixed by circular issued from the Colonial Secretary’s office dated 28th October, 1899 (Nu. 37). (2) The reasonable expenses of petitioning Parliament by the Returning Officer in connection with his claim for expanses against the County Council for conducting the Licensing election should foe paid: by the County Council, but no part of his casts in connection with legal proceedings against the County Council should be paid by that body. (3) Regarding generally the conduct and proceeding of the Returning Officer in connection with the election®, he was to> blame in refusing the nominations as above stated. He was also indiscreet in employing as deputy-returning officers two of his sons under age. one of them being -under nineteen and the other just over sixteen.

W,it!h reference to the charge against Mr A. Armstrong that at the general election of 1896 the Returning Officer refused the nomination of a candidate which was lodged .within the time allowed by the statute', on the ground that it was submitted too late, Mr Poynton states:—“Owing to the apparent importance at the time of the date on which the advertised notice was signed, it was suggested that the Returning Officer had purposely sworn a false affidavit with a view to influencing the decision lof hie Court in the election petition. I must acquit him of this, hut I find he was grossly careless in making an affidavit which, if he had read before signing, he would have seen contained inaccurate statements. Respecting charges of partisanship, there was no evidence proving that after his appointment to the position of Returning Officer he took part in .any politics; except that on one occasion he engaged a trap with the intention otf driving out a Minister who was on a visit to the district. He, was, however, forestalled by the Mayor of Carterton, who performed this duty.”

lii respect to the charge made by Mr W. C. Buchanan, M.H.R., against Mr R. R. Armstrong, Registrar of Electors, for removing off the roll tlie names of two elector®, in the belief that they had left the district of Wairarapa, the Commissioner found that except that the Registrar might have made further inquiries before replacing the names on the roll, he was not to blame. The Commissioner is quite satisfied that the Registrar’s action was not due to a desire to favour or injure the chances of any particular candidate. ;