DAISY CONTROL POLL

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11657, 23 October 1923, Page 4

DAISY CONTROL POLL

SCRUTINEERS’ TESTIMONY

“GOD HELP US IF IT DON’T SUCCEED.” ELECTORAL STAFF PRAISED. Mr F. H. Leonard, of Auckland, and Mr C- E. Maxwell, of Taranaki, who acted as scrutineers for the opponents of the Dairy Produce Control Act, pay a high tribute to the courtesy and efficiency of the staff of the Electoral Office that conducted tho poll. The system employed in handling the largo number of envelopes, and the method of opening, sorting, and recording the 1 votes, they say, would have satisfied the most exacting critic. Tho Chief Electoral Officer, Mr Hodgkins, in addition to superintending the whole of the other work, afforded even- possible facility to the if.crutineers in the discharge of their duties. Commenting upon the majority recorded m favour of the Act, the scrutineers explain that the envelopes as they were received at tho Electoral Office were sorted and placed in boxes. The boxes were opened in rotation, the earlier votes showing approximately a proportion of five to one in favour of the proposal, while tho later arrivals reduced the proportion to about three to one. This show©, the scrutineers think, that the persons who had views in support of the Act posted their bal-lot-papers early. The doubtful voters, they hold, were swayed hv the fuller information supplied by the opponents of the measure. Mes?rs Leonard and 'Maxwell have no doubt that if more time had been available for the distribution of well-considered information the voting would have been much closer. SOME HUMOURISTS. There were many humourous remarks appended to the voting-papers. An informal paper bore the statement: “Not knowing what is best I will not commit myself.” One voter, imbued with the less admirable epirit of the content, added to his paper: “Exit the parasites,” while another, probably with genuine trepidation, wrote: “And God help us if it don’t succeed.” An obvious opponent of the Act let it be known, without divulging his identity, that lie considered “all tlie promoters of the bill ought to be shot.” A lees militant'sympathiser demanded for himself and his fellow producers, “Freedom in a free country.”

The ballot- was singularly free from informal votes, and a considerable number of ballot-papers were returned with the explanation that duplicates had been received and had not been used. The {scrutineers maintain that the ballot lia© been of great educational value to those engaged in the dairy industry. They anticipate that an increasing number of producers will take a live, intelligent interest* in the industry and their own business, and so be better qualified to deal with the complex problems they will have to face in the not far distant future.