THE BRUCE LOCAL OPTION POLL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12738, 11 August 1903, Page 3

THE BRUCE LOCAL OPTION POLL.

DEPUTATION TO THE PREMIER. APPLICATION TO VALIDATE THE POLL. , MR SEDDON WILL NOT ENTERTAIN 1 . " " THE IDEA. NO LICENSING LEGISLATION'THIS SESSION. ... '..-"' (Thou Our Own. Coriiebfoxdint.) ; 'WELLINGTON, August 10. Mr James Allen litis afternoon introduced a deputation to the'Promierin regard to the recent Bruce local option poll. The Rev. P. B..Fraser acted as spokesman.' A number of-members of Parliament interested in prohibition and ' representatives of the New "Sealahd Alliance were also present. The Rev. Mr Eraser explained that he had been asked by the electors to present to Parliament a petition signed by ijimost 1800 electors in Bruco praying that legislation Should be passed validating the Brucs licensing polb He was not there in ally pro-, fessional or interfering position, but, having been elected as a member of the Licensing Committee, which was thrust into the position of defending Supreme Court actions, he" thought it fair to claim that he was representing the electors in this matter. The first point he wished to impress upon the. Premier was that they were not asking for licensing legislation. Secondly, in asking for tho poll to be. validated, they were not seeking retrospective legislation. To validate tho poll was simply to remove a technical informality to a past law. It was just- like asking .Parliament to validate an informal marriage. Parliament had done. such, things. This was totally different from asking Parlianient'to legalise an illegal marriage. Neither were they asking that the judgment of the magistrate should, be reversed, because the magistrate, said he was bound by tho Local Elections Act and reluotanlly, compelled to declare the poll void, -though the irregularities complained of 'had not affected the result of the poll. Much less were they asking fo» a reversal of the decision of what might be termed the courts of the colony, because in this case there was no appeal from the magistrate to the Supreme Court. They had no other remedy than that which they now proposed. They did riot wish for a new election, becauso there was rid demandfor that from either side, and a fresh election could not be held Without retrospective legislation of the worst type, There wasj however, no need of a fresh.'election, because the will of the electors had been declared over and over again in this case. In'.the first instance there was the declaration by : the returning officer. Then, there was" the recount before the' magistrate, when their majority was doubled. Then it was clear on the magistrate's inquiry that they had tho majority required, and that the irregularities that had taken place' could riot have affected the result. More than that, there had been a licensing election since, and the prohibition committee .was returned by a three-fifths majority. In addition to all this, they had the petition ■with 1800 signature. If tltey took the counter 'petition at its face value, there was still the three-fifths majority. There could thus he no question about tho will of the people of Bruce. The case «vas different from that of Port Chalmers and Newtown, end he thought he could'appeal with confidence k the Government to remove them from their present position. All- tltey asked was that the Government should steer an even keel between the two parties and do justice to both jsides._ 'Mr James Allen had a bil( before the House dealing, with, the' metter, and he (Mr. Eraser) asked Mr Seddon to.take it up as a Government measure and pass it through both Houses.

Mr Isitt- also enoke in the name of tens of thousand* of no-license voters throughout the colony. He said ho could not speak in' terms that would exaggerate the feeling of indignation -that was felt because of this npsetting'of polls on such small, grounds. Mr S'eddon asked what the technicalities were:on which this poll had been voided, and on thoir being stated: io him, Mr Isitt said .he-thought, on the face of it, ,there was a just claim to havo the poll validated.

Mr James Allen, as member for the district,: said ho would be only too glad if the Government would take up his bill to validate the poll. In this matter he had tried to banish from his mind flie question of lioenso or no-license. Ho hid gone carefully, into tho whe-jo- matter, and be eouid not, in the, face of what the magistrate had said, come to any other conclusion than that it .was their bounclen duty to 'have -the will of the people given effect to. The magistrate himself had eatd in so many -words that was the position. Accidental faults had caused that poll to Ue upset. . Mr Seddon, in reply, said the deputation had placed the matter before him most temperately, Ho, however, could not agree with Sir Fraser that they were not asking for retrospective legislation. It must be retrospective because any validation of the poll would take them back to the day ion which the poll was taken. -Certainly the legislation asked for was, of a retrospective character. "Again, it was legislation setting aside; the deliberate judgment of a court, because' the magistrate had declared the poll yoid, and had given his reasons for so doing, There was no precedent for doing what was asked, and they could not point to any instance in which, under the Local Elections, Act, a poll had been declared void and afterwards been made good by Parliament. '

Mr'Frascr pointed out. that there oould be. no such case, because in regard to all other elections provision was made for a fresh poll. Mr Se-ddon said they were asking him to lay. down a new precedent. Mr Fraser'a point simply showed that the Legislature in one case had guarded a parliamentary election, while in this .instance, under, the Local Elections Act, the subject matter had not been so guarded. • In .this case Parliament had not made provision for another election. In regard to the poll having.been

voided on purely technical grounds, he disagreed altogether from the views .of; the deputation, and m .this connection he laid great stress upon the fact that tho magistrate had referred to, the interference with the secrecy ofthe ballot, and'that what had been allowed in certain polling booths had a tendency to defeat tho fairness of the election. That, he. said, was not a technicality. One of tlie things they must safeguard, as abovo all party, was the secrecy, of the ballot. Ho could not.sit there and have it said that' this was a'technicality. They must not have any such violation condoned in any sbapp.or form. He was surprised at what was. now stated—viz., that they did not want a fresh election. In the first' instanco they had asked him for a. fresh election; now they had shifted their ground. Mr Fraser said that.deiramd had nod come from the. Temperance party. . Mr Seddon said it hi.d come from the Temperance party. A representative man had seen him and had brought the matter under his notice. Tlilre was'no getting over that fact. ' - Mr Fraeer: I am 11)1 -the centre of the Temperance party, anil I can only say it d! 3 not como from them. It must have eomo from an outsider. ' ■

. Mr Seddon: The last" time I was down there on my way through to Invercargill a. request .was.made to me to get provision made for a new poll. Mr Eraser said it had not come -from his

party. Mr Seddon: I am" not mistaken about ,-what I have stated. It is absolutely correct. Tho Premier went on to say that the objection to a fresh election was that they could not put the parties in tho same position in which they were on the day of the election. They could not now ensure-such a large number going to the poll, seeing that there would be no parliamentary election. The Premier made a statement clearly indicating that the Government.had no intention of introducing licensing legislation this session. He said soon after the last election tho Government got tho opinion of the Solicitor-general, which was 'to the effect that, as the law stands, if an election was voided there ia no machinery: for another poll, and that practically by'"the irregularities of a returning 'officer the will ol the people could be set aside. Suppose he put it another.way: In any .district where'the prohibitionists were in the ascendant all the "trade" need wish for-would be to havo a returning officer who would commit, irregularities, and by that 'means the will of tho people to crura' no-license would be set at naught. That, wis t|ie position today. It was proved, therefore, 1 that the law required amending.- There could be".no doubt whatever about that. Be. 1 , the question arose whother the new. law wa* to have retrospective.application or whether Parliament would simply amend the.'law to provide .against the samo contingencies occurring again. Thoj'matter was now.beforc the House. He believed,, however, that the question was fetill before the law courts, and that the'Newtown case was eoing to the Privy Council. That brought him to a noint on which he would like an answer from the deputation. Could they show him a case, did they know of any case, where, while litigation was pending—"whether it was from the Appeal Court to the Privy Council, from the Magistrate's to .the Supremo Court, or from the Supreme Court to the . Appeal Court,"—Parliament had interfered and said tho action of the courts was to bo set aside.,and that tho Legislature would.deal with it? He did.tiot know of a case of the kind. But fhori had been, cases nuite the reverse since ho had, been-in the House. Last session,.when.Parliament was legislating to validate titles to Native lands ill the North Island, there were one or two cases pending, the Government being interested as guarantors, arid Parliament absolutely refused -to interfere witli those cases. That, was the difficulty with regard to the apolication of- the deputation from •Bruce, and also with regard -to 'the application from Newtown; The .matter . was coming before the House, and the House was his master. He woe only, the servant of the majority for the time being. Ho wished to do what ho believed to he in the best interests of the colony, and he would never be a party to depriving the people of their rights and privileges; but at the same time it would be very dangerous to democracy, it would be, a danger to the people's life'and property, if Parliament commenced to interfere' with matters which were before, the tribunals established for the nurposo of protecting lifo and property. Until that was removed tho fituation was mosterobarrassing. These were the difficulties so far as he and the Government were concerned. Ho wished that the law-had made better provision for the contingencies which had arisen, but from what had'happenod he believed good would result.. They must have better returning officers,.and they rhust have .appeals.in regard to licensing (polls made to a tribunal with the same power as now exists in -the case of an appeal against tho return of a member of* Parliament. These matters must be-settled, and ho felt sure they would be settled, when Parliament approached the question. The time for Parliament to approach it was when, there was no bitterness of feeling, and when they could apnroaeh it with a desire to prevent what had transpired, ,and to ; see that the will of the people was givon effect to.- .