OAMARU CONTEST.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 16112, 28 April 1923, Page 9

OAMARU CONTEST.

MR, MACPHERSON’S CRITICISM

OF MR. LEE

THE RECENT ELECTION

(Per Press Association.) . OAMARU, last night

Mr. Maopherffon, (he Liberal candidate, addfressed ft very largo meeting at the Opera House. The candidate received a very cordial reception. The Mayor presided. Mr. Macpherson said 1 that, unfortunately, ho would have to deal with one or tivvo- names. In December the decision of the, returning officer was in his favor. After the election, Mr. Lee secured! a Magisterial inquiry, and 1 his first duty in connection with that was to pay 20 guineas into Court for the eosti of the inquiry. He did so and/ the inquiry was held'. * His (Mr. Macpherson’s) solicitor asked for expenses, but the Magistrate, a capable and impartial man who had been appointed by Mr. Lee himself, returned! the money intact to Mr. Lee. The cost! of the inquiry was paid out of the Consolidated! Fund, and was made a charge on the taxpayers of New Zealand 1 . That showed 1 the magnanimity of the late Minister of Justice. Mr. Macpherson then said l that he wanted to draw attention to the magnificent advertisement of the pink pills type from Sir John Findlay. Ho did not think one lady or gentleman in that hall understood o/ne word of it. He thought Sir John Findlay had forgotten the fact that he had thrown a very considerable slur on the Election Court, Sir John Findlay had' said! that Mr. Lee was returned/ by a majority of the valid votes. Why was the gladiator of Reform in the electorate with the second strongest man in the House if what Sir John Findlav said was true? Did it not appear to them to be an absurdity. He, (Mr. Macpherson) accepted the decision, without considering for a moment that anything was wrong. •

Mr. Macpherson then turned his attention to sheets illustrating the marking on the voting papers' which had caused all the trouble. He produced l one sheet with the, final iii the word' “Lee” and the words “Ernest Page” struck out, while the line containing words “Maepherson, John And'rcw,’’ were untouched, and! he asked! his audience to 'indicate to which candidate they would have given the vote, if they had,been the returning officer. Voices: For Macpherson. Mr. Macpherson said! the vote was allowed! to them by* every one of the returning officers. Votes of that kind came from every quarter and numbered 19 in all. These votes were sent to the head office in Oamarii for official inspection and declaration, at which the chief returning officer presided. Mr. Lee and the speaker were represented by scrutineers. These votes were never questioned, being passed' aa sent in from the' different booths. The returning officer t hen made an official declaration that be (Mr. Macpherson) had! been retiurned by a majority of 23 votes, but Mr. Lee was not satisfied. Mr. Lee was then prepared to say that lie, did not trust what his own lawver and scrutineers bad 1 said and what, the return in g officer had said. He challenged the whole of the men and women who had carried out their duties in the booths; most of whom were bis own supporters. He proceeded further and lodged l an an plication for a. Macistlerial recount. What 1 took place in connection with this reeouiit ? The speaker said, that his counsel had informed 1 him that the law was not carried' out as it should have been. That misfit be correct, A, statement was made by Mr. Lee that he had’ looked’up an old Act. Ho said that it was not an oldl Act. He might say he was just as capable as Mr. j-oo of interpreting ft simple clause in that Act. (Applause.) Mr. Leo had said he was a trained lawyer, but he (Mr. Macpherson) did not think he had shown much evidence of his training. There were such things as trained horses, but, sometimes, those horses were put out to grass and 1 lost their condition. JHo was afraid that that was what had happened, to Mr. Lee in • this respect. (Applause.) The Magisterial inquiry should have taken place under conditions identical with those prevailing at the/ inquiry before th<? .returning officer, hut Mr. Lee had! seettfetf the services of Mr. Payne,,as the Tesult of ft legal precedent established some years ago. When the Magistrate and Mr. Payne arrived in Oamaru, he (Mr. Macpherson! objected, and demanded tlhat his Scrutineer should be replaced! by his own solicitor, this being allowed. This was the first case in which the law was departed from. The votes were gone through very carefully for a third 1 time and no alteration, was made in. connection with the disputed votes except in regard-to one class, and’the Magistrate gave a certificate that he (Mr, Macpherson) was elected by ft majority of 14 votes,/ But still Mr, Lee was pot satisfied', He must get back tp Parliament at any price and! anyhow, and! he turned all his meai down and could not- trust any of .them. Mr. Macpherson then asked for an expression of opinion- in legard tio a paper with the whole of the words “Lee, Ernest Page,” struck out and the word's “John Andrew” struck cut, leaving tha word/ “Macpherson” un--1 toil,died'. Voice®: “Informal” fighting Mac, There* were eleven vote® of this class, and l he must also say that Mr. Lee had two of the same, the word “Macpherson” being struck out and the word “Lee” lieing untouched. That explained how his majority was reduced from 13 to 14. In the next class of vote, the words “Lee, Ernest Page,” were untouched and tne words “Macpherson, John Andrew,” wpeo struck out with the exception of ihe pqrlion “Mac.” The speaker -said lie agreed, that this was an honest vote for Mr Lop, .qnd> pa objection was taken to him getting them. Mr. Macpherson Prow attention, to the. fact that three letters of his panic* were untouched. Mr. Lee demanded 1 thpt the. last vestige of a name should be struck out; and was he (Mr. Mpcpherson) not entitled! to do the same? , Mr. Lee, however, lodged! an election petition, pnd! lie (Mr. Macphewm) found in the/ Otago Daily Times, ip Mr. Lee's own wotpls, a statement that ho (Mr- Lee) fti ft' ppt even ask for a new election, hid Wfts prepared to •Stand of full by tha supmflft decision—a new election, “And I want you to mark it, ’ said Mr. Macpherson, “that it was asked lor in a counter- petition, put' forwrad! by bis (Mr. Lee’s) opponent and ho did not get it. Here, said! the, speaker, was a deliberate.statement by Mr. Lee that he (Mr. Macpherson) had filed l a _ counter - pelation askipg fqr p fjpsb jplfctjqp. That was a. deliberate ipisrstatemeni. Hap they ever heard of a ntan loduing a petition tp unseat himself in Parliaments Ho thought Mr, Lee should have accepted the opinion of about 100 trained people, rather than the decision, of the Election Court, and! he considered that ho (the speaker) was more than justified in defending the case. He had with him a ballot paper on which the names of the same two candidate® and' the .Christian names also appeared’. “On that occasion,” Mr Lee. was elected without challenge by the) speaker, and! he had sat in Parliament,, complacently for three years. Thclre had! been other elections where the Christian' names and surnames had' appeared 1 on the ballot papers, and there had! been po election petition until it came to the ex-Minister of Justico. Mr. Macpherson dealt with the question of the deposit of £2OO, and) snjd that It was all right as long as the jfexMinister of Justice was concerned, but his (Mr. Macpherson’s) side could not! get. the cases struck out, 1 andi the Court had renlly fined! him 10 guineas for being presumptuous. The cx-Mimster of J usticei did! not want another election. Mr. Leo wanted! to be returned 1 by the Election Court, and not by a majority otf the voters of Oamaru. . Referring to the presence of the Prune Minister- in the district, Mr. Macpherson said 1 that hut a few years ago Mr. Massey said that interference by Ministers was morally wrong and was a corrupt practice. On another occasion Mr. Mas-

sey hod said l that interference by Ministers either for or against candidates was the most objectionable interference. A few years ago, when, a new party was formed’ by Mr. Stiatham and! others, the ex-Minister of Justice was ci member of that party. At that time Mr. Massey described' Mr. Statham as nothing more nor less than “ft political wheelbarrow.” Up/ till December 7, Mr Wilfordi had been regarded' witili little favor by the Reform press, but, after that, lie was the man they wanted/ for the Speaker's choir. When Mr. Wilford! would! no( rake the position they discovered! that Mr. Statham was the ideal man. and! lie was elefiterll to the position. The exMinister of Justice dared not come down and tell his own story like the speaker was doing. That was the action of a strong man. He (Mr. Macpherson) left it! to/ the electors to answer the question on May 1. (Applause.) My. Macpherson dealt with the question, and! strongly criticised 1 the Reform administration. Ho denounced the Reform propaganda, claiming credit for many Liberal measures. He said that lie disdained l sympathy, but appealed to the electors not t.<K be led' astray hv Mr. Massey, saying that the defeat of Mr. Lee would* mean another election. A vote of thanks and confidence was carried by an overwhelming majority.