OAMARU BATTLE

Southland Times, Issue 18927, 28 April 1923, Page 5

OAMARU BATTLE

TUESDAY’S CONTEST SPEECH BY LIBERAL CANDIDATE (Per United Press Association). OAMARU,. April 27. Mr Macpherson, Liberal candidate, addressed a very large meeting at the Opera House. The candidate received a very cordial reception. The Mayor presided. Mr Macpherson said that unfortunately he would have to deal with one or two names. In December, the decision of the returning officer was in his favour. After the election Mr Lee secured a magisterial inquiry and his first duty in connection with that was to pay 20 guineas into the Court for the costs of the inquiry. He did so and the inquiry was held. His (Mr Macpherson’s) solicitor asked for expenses, but the Magistrate returned the money intact to Mr Lee. The cost of that inquiry was paid out of the Consolidated Fund and was made a charge on the taxpayers of New Zealand. That showed the magnaminity of the late Minister of Justice. Mr Macpherson then turned his attention to sheets illustrating marking on voting papers which he said had caused all the trouble. He produced one sheet with a final "E” in the word Lee and the words “Ernest Page” struck out, while the line containing the words “Macpherson, John Andrew” wore 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 that vote was allowed to him 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 Oamaru 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 as sent in from the different booths. The returning officer then made an official declaration that he (Mr Macpherson) had been returned by a majority of 23 votes, but Mr Lee was not satisfied. Mr Lee was then prepared to say that he did not trust what his own lawyer and scrutineer had said, and what a returning officer had said. He challenged the whole of the men and women who had carried out the duties in the booths, most of whom were his own supporters. He proceeded further and lodged an application for a magisterial recount, which took place. In connection with this recount, the speaker said that his counsel had informed him that the law was not carried out as it should have been. He wished to correct a statement by Mr Lee that he had looked at an o.d Act. He said it was not an old Act. Ho might say bo was just as capable as Mr Lee in interpreting a simple clause in that Act. (Applause). Mr Lee had said that 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 lost tLeir .condition. He 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 the chief returning officer, but Mr Lee secured the services of Mr Payne, as the result of a legal precedent established some years ago. When the Magistrate and Mr Payne arrived in Oamaru, he (Mr McPherson) objected and demanded that his scrutineers 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 time and no alteration was made in connection with the disputed votes, except in regard to one class. The Magistrate gave a certificate he (Mr Macpherson) was elected by a majority of 14 votes, but still Mr Lee was not satisfied. He must get bsck to Parliament at any price and anyhow, he turned all his men down and he could not trust any of them. Mr Macpherson then asked for an expression of opinion ir. regard to a paper with the whole of the words “Lee Ernest Page” struck out, and the words “John Andrew” struck out, levang the word “Macpherson” untouched. There were 11 votes of this class and he must also say that Mr Lee had 2 of the same kind, the word “Macpherson” being struck out, and the word “Lee” being untouched. That explained how his majority was reduced from 23 to 14. In the next class of vote, the words “Lee Ernest Page” were untouched and the words “Macpherson John Andrew” were struck out with the exception of the portion “Mac.” The speaker said he agreed that this was an honest vote for Mr Lee, and no objection was taken to him getting them. Mr Macpherson drew attention to the fact that tlree letters of his name were untouched. Mr Lee demanded that the last vestige of a name should be struck out and was he (Mr Macpherson) not entitled to do the same? Mr Lee, however, lodged an election petition, and he (Mr Macpherson) found in the Otago Daily Times in Mr Lee’s own words, a statement that he (Mr Lee) did not even ask for a new election, but was prepared to stand or fall by the Supreme Ccurt decision. A deliberate statement had been made by Mr Lee that he (Mr Macpherson) had filed a counterpetition asking for a fresh flection. That was a deliberate misstatement. Had they ever heard of a man lodging a petition to unseat himself in Parliament? He thought that Mr Lee should have accepted the opinion of abcut 100 trained people rather than the decision of the Election Court, and he considered that he was more than justified in defending the case. He had with him a ballot paper, with the names of the same two candidates and the Christian names also appeared. On that occasion Mr Lee was elected without any challenge by the speaker and he had sat in Parliament complacently for three years. There had been other elections where Christian and surnames of candidates had appeared on ballot papers and there had been no election petition until it came to the ex-Minister of Justice.

Mr Macpherson dealt with the question of the deposit of £2OO, and said it was all right, as long as the ex Minister of Justice was concerned, but Mr Macpherson’s side could not get the case struck out, and the Ccurt had really fined him ten guineas for being presumptuous. The ex-Minister of Justice did not want another election. Mr Lee wanted to be returned by the Election Court, and not by a majority of the voters of Oamaru. Referring to the presence cf the Prime Minister in the district, Mr Macpherson said that but a few years ago Mr Massey said that interference by Ministers was morally wrong and was a corrupt practice. On another occasion Mr Massey had said that interference by Ministers, either for or against candidates, was the most objectionable interference. A few years ago, when the new party was formed by Mr Statham and others, the ex-Minister of Justice was a member of that party. At that time Mr Massey described Mr Statham as nothing more or less than a political wheelbarrow. Up till December 7Mr Wilford was regarded with little favour by the Reform press, but after that he was the man they wanted for the Speaker’s chair. When Mr Wilford would not take the position they discovered that Mr Statham was the ideal man, and he was elected to the position. The ex-Minister of Justice dared not come down and tell his own stcry like the speaker was doing. Was that the action of a strong man? He (Mr Macpherson) left it to the electors to answer the question on May I. (Applause.) He would fight his own battles. Mr Macpherson dealt with the land question and strongly criticised the Reform administration. He denounced the Reform propaganda, claiming credit for many Liberal measures. He said he disdained sympathy, but appealed to the electors not to b? lead astray by Mr Massey saying that the defeat of Mr Lee wculd mean another election. A vote of thanks and confidence was by an overwhelming majority.