HARBOUR BOARD ELECTIONS

Observer, Volume XXIX, Issue 27, 20 March 1909, Page 2

HARBOUR BOARD ELECTIONS

More About the Buchanan Proxy

AN article in our last issue canvassed rather severely the re-

ported actions of Messrs J. H. Gunson and J. C Spedding in reference to the use made of proxies at the recent Harbour Board election. That article applied itself first to an exposure of the loose way in which. proxies were employed ill general in connection with the poll, and then passed on to a criticism of actions that were credited to Mr J. H. Gunson, who was a candidate in the election, and Mr J. C. Spedding, one of his supporters. It is with the strictures passed upon these gentlemen, that we are now concerned.

It will be remembered that our article. credited Mr Gunson with having rung up the office of Walter Buchanan, .Limited, and arranged with one of the clerks to supply a proxy on behalf of W. Buchanan, .Limited, when Mr Buohanan himself was out of town. On the information, which was before us at the time, there appeared to be full authority for making this statement. It had been sworn at the inquiry, by Mr A. G. McDonald, that he heard Mr Gunson ring up the Buchanan establishment and arrange about the proxy — that he was standing beside Mr Gunson at the time — and that subsequently he (Mr McDonald) went to Buchanan's and obtained the proxy. So much for appearances at the time the article was penned.

There are, however, two sides to every question, and we have since had the opportunity of learning Mr Gunson's side of the matter. From this it would r>^near that on Mr McDonald's part there was a mistake in identity or recollection. Mr James Robertson, grain merchant, definitely takes tlie responsibility for having telephoned to the Buchanan establishment concerning the proxy, and the evidence of Mr Buchanan's clerk that only one person rang up in the matter excludes the possibility of Mr

•Gunson having dono so. Mr Gunson Hmself positively states that he never rang up W. Buchanan, Limited, either in connection with a proxy, -or on any matter bearing on the Harbour Board election ; that he never either requested or importuned Mr Buchanan's clerk to sign the proxy, •either in his employer's name or otherwise ; that he did not know of the existence of the proxy, or that the signature thereon was not that of Mr Walter Buchanan, until after the election ; and that he never acquiesced in the use of that proxy.

These statements, of course, effectually answer the catechism which we put to Mr Gunson last week, and show clearly that he was not in any sense a party to the obtaining or use of an irregular proxy in Mr Buchanan's name. In the circumstances, ■we can only regret that when last ■week's article was written we were not fully informed as to the facts. Had we been so informed we would not have accused Messrs Gunson a,ntl Spedding of having disgracefully and ■wantonly abused the proxy system. "With Mr McDonald's evidence before us, however, we were misled as to the actual circumstances.

Further, it follows that as Messrs ■Gunson and Spedding were not responsible for any of the questionable transactions which were attributed to them, the references to their religious and moraJ character do not a.pplv. and we wish unreservedly to withdraw those reflections. That there was irregularity in connection with the Buchanan proxy is true enough, but, on the evidence now before uSj, the responsibility for trfat irregularity does -not lie at Tvfr Gunson's door.

a

■