DUNEDIN NORTH ELECTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2858, 23 December 1908, Page 15

DUNEDIN NORTH ELECTION.

: STATEMENT BY MR BARCLAY. - At a meeting of hia committee on the Bsth Mr Barclay made the. following state- ; \fnemt : — • I «~ The Jtime has now come when I should jQsy before my committee a full account of ■"ihe position of -matters in connection with Sfche recent Dunedin North election. It will jbe remembered that on the first declaration S>f the poll at the George Street ""Gymnasium £the numbers were, Thomson 3333, Barclay After that I received three seamen's Jvotes, and I understand, one informal, trhich should make my total 3385. Mr ybomson, on the count by*, the returning Etffioar, got one absent voter's vote and one informal, I .understand, which should make lis total also 3385; yet the returning >ffioer'e official declaration shows — Thomson 5382, Barclay 3376. I thus appear to" have been docked of none (9) votes. Seven of bhess votes, I understand, are accounted for in this way: — There were four alleged SJases of dual voting; that is to. say, the lame person voting twice* on the day of election. In one of these cases of dual iroting, apparently one vote was given for kf r Thomson and one for me, and as both votes were struck oul this would, not, of worse, •Iter the relative positions of the !wo candidates. In the other three cases of llleged dual voting the facts as investigated show that there we* no dual voting, krad all the six voters which were struck mt in respapt to thflss three oases— that is to say, the original vote and the alleged eoood vote in each oase— were properly and rightfully recorded for me. This would reiutt, if" tfcere -were nothing further to be ■id, in -the two candidates obtaining exactly She same number of votes. There wsxe frteo, how»vcr, to be argued the questions Jtrf the validity of the absent voter's vote Jlrbioh was given for me, and which was JdisWLUytred on the ground that it had cot teen registered in a district inhere a second Iwllot election was taking place. The ptbeent voter's vote allowed to Mr Thomson *w*s giveri to him on the ground thajt a. jsecond ballot eleotion happened to be going ton in the district where it was recorded. It appears to me that that ia an unnatural Interpretation of the law, and is cot right.

JPensonally, I think that both votes should pave been disallowed, as it was not intended ithat absent voters should have any say at ■11 in second ballot elections. There was Urn the question of *n informal vote which tad been given to Mr Thomson, and which, is far as I could understand the matter, j >ugiht to have been treated as informal and | riven to none. So far asl oan understand Briber, on the count before the magistrate ft \ra« found that the total number of rotes duly and properly recorded in my_ ■ afour was more by one o<r\ two than the officer had allowed me. In these ' rcumstanoes I feel justified in, saying that , ([believe that the majority of valid votes ■ ■bonded- on the day of election were re- | jrded in my flavour. With a view to ( efcting the Question of the six votes out j BF -from my ~tot*l on the ground of dual 6*ing tested, I applied for a recount by , he magistrate. The returning officer, how- ' fret, took up the stand that these six votes

were struck out during the scrutiny of the roils, that is to say, during the process of going through the rojls and checking them for the purpose'of discovering errors or cases of dual' voting. So far as I can learn 13 cases of, apparently, dual voting were found. As to nine of theqe cases the returning officer, for" some reason, came to the conclusion that they were the result of poll clerk's errors, the remaining- four, as I have said, were decided to be cases oV double voting. The law says that if at 1 appears tlipt. the same person has received a ballot-paper at two or more polling places, i " and if satisfied beyond doubt of the iden- • tity of the person so voting," the returning : officer shall disallow every vote appearing to be given by means of the ballot- . papers go issued. Ihe returning officer, so • far as I can learn, did not take steps to satisfy himself " beyond doubt of the iden1 tity of the person so voting," and in that 1 respect I think the returning office?, though ( I do not for an instant cay that he did i not think he was doing his duty, erred. j If he had taken the trouble to investigate I he would have promptly found that there I was no double voting. In taking no suoh eteps, or making any such inquiries, I think ihe returning officer acted -wrongly, with the result that those six votes were lost to me, and thus all the trouble has been caused. Incidentally, it is interesting t« ask why no steps have been.taken to punish any of those persons who are alleged to have voted twice, »nd whose votes have, In ooMequence, been struck out. The returnfauj officer then declined to produce thote six votes «t the recount before the magistrate on th* ground that he had ■truok out those votes on the scrutiny of

the roHs, and that they had never been included amongst the votes that were counted. It did not appear to me, personally, that it was very much use going on with the re--count before the magistrate if the question of the six iptes was not to be decided by doing so. However, as I had paid the deposit of £20, and I felt sure that many of my supporters would blame me afterwards if I did not allow it to go on, I agreed to the recount proceeding. The result, apparently, shows that I had a majority of somewhere about 12 votes, but the returning officer, who appears to have taken some -part in t^ie proceeding — a course which I hardly think should have been adopted, — declared that all the votes which he counted Were not before the magistrate.' At all events, it seems that some at least of Mr Thomson's votes are not producible. They have apparently beep lost, mislaid, or gone astray. The magistrate, therefore, says t that, all the votes counted by the returning I officer not being produced to him, he v& i unable to recount them, and does not propose to do anything further in the matter, t leaving it to me or anybody else to apply ; to a judge of the Supreme Court for an order to the magistrate to make a deolarat tion as to the r«suk of the recount. It , may. of counse, be argued that the duty ' of the magistrate is to count the vot«s acfcuallv produoed to him. and originally stated by the returning officer to be all the | votes which he, as returning pfficer, had coupt>sd. Th« vote*, made up in sealed! ' packages, were, daggered, Jo bhe magistrate as being all the votea recorded, with the exception, of course, of the six votes struck

*~ • - - | out, as already explained, on the scrutiny j of the rolls. WJi«n the totals of the two 1 candidates were found to be different from f the totals in tihe official declaration of the ! returning officer, it was then alleged that the number of votes originally counted were now not there. It would appear that the number missing ie estimated 1 at from 14 to 13, the exact number does not seem to have been decisively settled. It is now left to me to apply to the Supreme Court for an order to the magistrate directing Jiizzr what 1 to do, but if the judge were to decide against me it would be too late to file a i petition to have myself declared the successful candidate or a new election ordered. I Such a petition has to be filed 28 days after j the public declaration of the poll by the returning officer, which took place on the 1 30bh of November, end as the Christmas holidays intervene, it means that a petition will require to be filed at latest 6OmewJi«re ' about the 23rd December, and a sum of ■ £200 deposited or guaranteed. At present, as the magistrate only announced his intention to-day, I have not yet made up my mind as to what course I shall take. I can only aay, in conclusion, that I* hardly envy Mr Thomson the possession of the seat in such circumstances. It cannot be said that it is not held under a cloud and a shadow nominally by Mr Thomson, but really that is another - question. Had the magistrate declared that I was entitled to the seat as the result of the recount, and it was shown that sufficient of Mr Thomson's votes were missing to nvake the issue doubtful, I should not hare h«dd the seat for an hour. I would have felt it my duty to resign at once rather than hold a seat that had any trace of a taint about it. A «olution of we vexed question would be for both candidates to step onoe more into the arena and let the question, be settled definitely by the electors of Dunedin North wbioh of the two candidates they desire M their representative.