The Invercargill Local Option Poll.

Southland Times, Issue 19724, 26 January 1906, Page 4

The Invercargill Local Option Poll.

f esc-"./, , - , . I FURTHER ARGUMENT. TOE ENQUIRY CLOSED. The Bad) resumed the enquiry. Into the i Invercargtu local option poll yesterday ait 10 a.au Interest In tbe proceedings is unabated, the courtroom being *eU occupied during the morning by prominent workers On (he license and no-)loense .... ■ A FURTHER SCRUTINY. Mr HosMng said that there were two votes- which, had not been scrutinised on account of some mistake with regard to the numbers- The petitioners now had the correct numbers, a mistake having . been made in the transcription. The papers to be examined were No. 27 instead of 271, and No. 3810 instead of 2870. ' Hr Adams questioned whether the other side, otter having given the respondents certain particulars, could take another number and ask lor a scrutiny. The scrutiny was closed, and his learned friend had addressed tbe Court on tbe numbers.. Mr Hosking said that tho numbers had been misquoted, and the other side could hardly take advantage oi that.* The Chairman said that it was clearly understood at the scrutiny that these two- votes would be scrutinised later, and the Court thought that tho request should be granted. The Bench then retired to make the scrutiny. ARGUMENT.

On resuming, Mr Adorns submitted, in regard to voting papers which had been wrongly marked by 'the voters, that tho law in New Zealand was more liberal in its treatment than that of Wherever the Court could reasonably ascertain what tho mind of tho voter was tbe vote should bo given effect to in counting tho vates. In one case under review the voter stsuck out every letter in the two top lines, and only part of the bottom line- Apparently the voter struck out part of the bottom lino before he noticed that he would be defeating his own intention, and then he struck out tho two other lines to make sure that there would be no mistake. Mr Hosking i It was a very great mistake for one to make who had the refrain “ Strike out the top line " running in his head. Mr Adams : 1 have had people come to me and say that the papers were wrongly printed and tho questions reversed. They claimed to have beer, too smart to be caught, and struck out the two bottom lines. All sorts of strange notions get Into people's heads when they get lo tho booth. In regard to the absent voters' papers 6503, 6520 and 6571, which did not bear tho official stomp, counsel submitted that the absence of tho stamp should not be considered vital, ns there were special precautions taken to prevent malpractice. The voting permit handed to tho voter mbst bo delivered by him to tho person where he tendered his vote in the outside district- The holder of the permit received a ballot paper, marked it. and handed It to the officer at the booth. The officer enclosed it in i n envelope, and this was enclosed iu another envelope with the permit and tent by post to tho returning officer of the districe in respect of which the voter voted. Tho means oi identification was the per mit which had. been issued, mvl which, must come back to the returning officer who issued it before tho paper cold be taken into account at all. In regard to Nd. 6520, one of the permits under review, he took the formal objection that it boro the printed words " Wakatipu licensing District," and could not therefore be held to apply to the Invercargill district. Tho Chairman asked Mr Adams if it did not occur to him that, the mistake made in that case could not have boon made by the voter. The mistake had apparently been made by the returning officer, and it would not be fair to disfranchise the voter on that ground.

Mr Adams snW that his objection, like those raised by the other side, was purely technical. There were other votes which had been strenuously opposed by the other side because they did not bear the official seal or mark. He submitted that the Court would And that there was B community of procedure in connection with electoral and licensing polls, and that in a licensing poll the presence of the seal could not be looked upon as u matter of such vital importance, when it Was not so regarded in electoral polls. A point had been made that a magistrate had sat personally to conduct the recount. and It was stated that the practice was for a magistrate to appoint some person to conduct the count, and accept fal> decision. However, counsel knew that in the Bruce poll Mr Cruickshnnk personally conducted the r ® c ° utl and at Waikouaiti. although Mr Wuldo«Bon appointed a person to act, questions arising In the recount were referred to him for decision. Concerning vote 3335 to which the objection wno that it was signed by an electoral officer, the scrutiny showed that it had been sfcnert bv Mr Lang, who was substitute returning officer. Counsel pointed out that d It were required that both electoral and licensing clerks should sign the papers issued to illiterates and blind voters, the eompartments would have to bo made large enough to accomodate seven persons—four scrutineers, two officers, and the voter. Vote 657®, on which the marks were on the reverse side of the ballot paper, should be allowed, as the intention of the voter was apparent. The lines were very apparent on the reverse side, and if held before a mirror would read correctly. A weaksighted voter might have been misled. Counsel again opposed the Proposition that certain informal votes should be added to the total votes recorded before the three-fifths majority was ascertained. Mr Hosklng, In reply, said that lish and New Zealand law were Identical when dealing with the rejection of m-, properly marked papers, though In derisions quoted by his learned friend there were different inferences drawn by the judges. Counsel again dealt exhausti/oy with the question of the seal belli* a necessary ingredient of a vote, arguing that under the Alcholic Liquors Sale tontrol Act. it must he affixed before the vote could be formal. Mr Colycr, an experienced Reluming Officer, had rejected the votes, but later on allowed them in deference to the Magistrate’s ruling. On the question of the treatment of the Informal votes which it was claim. Ibould be added to the total votes recorded. counsel submitted that Hr. McArthur’s decision was the only one, and that it should bo followed. The ouestlon had never been decided by another magistrate.

SUMMING UPMr Adams, in his final reply, sal.l that, ho was lully satisfied that the Importance of the final adjustment of the figures would receive the Bench’s moat ca eful consideration. Not a fraction of a vote over the three-fifths majority was required to carry no-llcense. ■ leterr, ”‘| again to opposing counsel a ttention that the informal votes should ho added to the total before the three-filths majority was ascertained, ho contended that it was antecedently improbable that any such Chinese puzzle should be “ ade t0 determine an election. It was incred.Uo that the Legislature intended to turn an intended vote lor no-llcense, by a bu ® der of the returning officer or other omcial. or bona fide mistake of the elector himself, into an efficient instrument to destroy his own Intention. It was dishonest, unjust, absurd, and absolutely Incredible. Of the total votes which the petitioners deslredr the Court to deal with' in this way, the large majority would be so used against the intention of those who put them in the ballot box. The absolute rejection of informal voles from iho calculation waa the universal practice throughout the colony, and If the contention of opposing counsel wene upheld there would not have been a, valid declaration glvla la-the colony. He confidently left the case in the hands of the Bench, absolutely falling to see that they jonld 3ecfde that Informal votes were ef-

ol \tWa i|*ne to iIM way or tbqt U»# t «® na °* tb» Electoral Act should ho ignored and votes which were not sealed treated a# informal, - ■ - In-reply Mr Hosting renewed tbo points raised by counsel lor the respondents. The petitioners mere quite content to have the enquiry limited to the ro'quest contained In the petition—that the poll be declared void. They did not ask the Bench to declare that any other proposal than the one declared to he curried had been curried, as . they had not sufficient votes. The Court might b« able to declare reduction carried, but the petitioners would bo satisfied II the poll were voided, when things would remain as they were... Counsel lor the responds ents had argued against the contention that certain informal votes should bo added to the total votes recorded, on the ground that it practically gave the voter

a vote. Counsel lolled to see why the vote should not be considered effective in that way. The Court might assume that in a poll ol 1000 votes 700 iulormala had been cast lor continuance and 300 lor no-Uconso. The consequence ot his friend's argument, pushed to its logical conclusion, would bo that no-liccuso was cornted, because informal voles, other than those specifically excluded from the count by the Legislature, had been excluded. Ho submitted that a voter who had recorded his vote was a voter who had received his paper and marked ol! a proposal. By including the informal votes In the total the voter was given a status, a position as one of the community, and it ensured that he would not be overridden in regard to a matter which affected his personal liberty- In conclu-

sion counsel pointed out that the Bench were relieved very largely from giving what might be called the casting vote on this matter. In declaring in favour ol tbo existing stale ot, things they would leave the matter to bo submitted to the people for a fresh ballot. Where presumptions had to be made on one side or the other, these presumptions should be la favour of tho existing state ot things. These things had been from tho .oundation ol the colony, and on tho other side there was a social experiment, the effect ot which no one could predict. A : arge amount ol‘ property was involved, and its value must bo affected by the decision of the Court unless tho appeal was sustained. Mr Adams said that if his friend wished to argue this matter he would doim ♦he right to reply. There was a much .more important body than these lew who hold tho property. Any necessary inference should be drawn in favour of the* great mass ot the electors.

Mr Riddell : I don’t think we want argument on that point. Mr Adams suggested that, as the waiter of calculation was of some Imports anco, both sides shou.d submit figures to the Bench for their guidance. Mr Hosking said that the petitioners would like to do that. • They considered that they should succeed, hue if tho do-' cision were tho other way they would ask that the question of absent voters' permits he dealt with. The Chairman said that counsel could forward their figures later on Ihe decision of the Court would be given on Wednesday next ,at 10 a m. The enquiry was then adjourned.