The Wanganui Chronicle. "Nulla Dies Sins Linea." MONDAY, JULY 10, 1905. THE PORT CHALMERS DECISION.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIX, Issue 12547, 10 July 1905, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. "Nulla Dies Sins Linea." MONDAY, JULY 10, 1905. THE PORT CHALMERS DECISION.

The electors of the Port Chalmers constituency have every reason to feel && grieved. It will be remembered that at the 1902 election. Port Chalmers voted "no-license," and a petition was lodged against the declared result of the poll on the ground of certain alleged irregularities that took place during the voting. The Prohibitionists contended, that Mr. Graham, S.M., before whom the case was brought, was not the person qualified to deal with it in terms of the Act. The Court of Appeal decided in their favour, but the Privy Council, to which a further appeal was carried, ruled against them. As a petition against the validity of a poll must be laid before the Court within a certain limited-time after the election, the disqualification of Mr. Graham would have effectually barred the "Trade" from carrying its protest further. However, the construction put upon the law by the Privy Council allowed Mr. Graham to proceed with the hearing of the case, and he last week decided in favour of the petitioners. The effect of this decision, of course, is that so far as licenses and public houses are concerned, Port Chalmers reverts to the position in which it stood two and a half years ago. The electors of thai, constituency have every reason to feel aggrieved, and they will have, we feel sure, the sympathy of tbeir fellow colonists throughout New Zealand. The Auckland "Star," jbhe paper which supports the Government in-the northern city, may be cited as fairly representing the views of those who are opposed to "no-lioense." In this matter, however, the "Star" very rightly puts its prejudice on one side, and views the Port Chalmers fiasco from the point of view of an injured and offended democracy. According to the strict letter of the law, the "Star" believes that no fault can be found with Mr. Graham's decision. But it is of opinion that most unprejudiced people will agree, after reading over the "counts" on which the judgment if based, "that the Prohibitionists have here a just grievance that demands redress." In support of this opinion it says: "The irregularities complained of are, we admit, technical breaches of the law; but we entirely mato see how such minor infringements of the Statutes are to be obviated. For example, it is practically impossible to keep the booths clear of all but the statutory number of voters—impossible, that is, without a force of officials or police nearly as numerous as the voters themselves. As to the precautions "for maintaining the secrecy of the ballot," no election was ever conducted which might not be annulled on a strictly literal interpretation of our law. In adjudicating on such cases, much is necessarily left to the discretion of the presiding magistrate; and the only conclusion we can come to, after reading the judgment, is that Mr. Graham might easily and conscientiously have put a more liberal construction upon the facts of the case, or at least might have real- ' ised the impossibility of maintaining

the validity of any election according to the literal reading of our Statutes. As matters now stand, the expressed will of the people has been set aside for reasons that can hardly be supposed to have affected the result of the voting; and thus the chief object and purpose of the licensing poll has been nullified. In such cases, we hold, it is the duty of magistrates or courts to -eep steadily in view the intention of our licensing laws. Manifestly the Statutes that apply to the case were draughted for tho purpose of discovering and carrying into effect the wish of tho majority of tho people with respect to the sale of liquor. This being so, we consider that nothing but very strong presumptive evidence to tho effect that the will of tho majority is misrepresented by the result of the vote should justify the annulling of such a poll. In the case of Pert Chalmers it does not seem that such evidence has been forthcoming;, and the electors of the district have therefore strong reasons for complaining that they have been practically disfranchised on inadequate grounds and for causes almost entirely beyond the control of the best intentioned and n;ost scrupulous returning officer." The point which the "Star" seeks to emphasise is this, that the injustice and tho loss which have been suffered by both Prohibitionists and hotelkeepera at Port Chalmers might have been prevented by a reasonable modification of the licensing laws with respect to voided polls. In this connection, our contemporary very rightly points out that if the law made provision for a new poll immediately a poll was voided,, neither the "Trade" nor the New Zealand Alliance would waste time and money in. contesting trivial points such as those on which the Port Chalmers; judgment has turned. The same argument, of course, applies to Newtownand otheir; districts in which disputes; have arisen over the effect of the nolicense vote. It is quite true that it may be difficult and expensive to hold a second-licensing poll after the first has been voided. But such a provisionwould be certainly a valuable addition to the law as it now stands. If when a licensing, poll is upset a second poll is; a certainty, we will have no more in-* genious attempts to defeat the will of the people by legal quibbles.-^