Wellington Independent THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1871.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3308, 21 September 1871, Page 2

Wellington Independent THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1871.

Elsewhere will be found the report of the Motueka Election Committee. They huve found that Sir David Monro is not entitled to a seat in the House. The feelings of those are not to be envied who can read the report of the committee without feelings of regret and pain. The very high office which Sir David ! Monro held for eleven years, and held I so worthily, renders his unseating on an I election petition inexpressibly painful. ' In a Parliament in which so many are unaccustomed to parliamentary forms and usages, the absence of Sir David Monro will he severely felt. As a private member, Sir David would have - taken that active part in politics from wliich, by virtue of his office as Speaker, he has been so long debarred, and in the capacity of a private politician his high personal qualifications would have ! stood him in good stead. Hie opposi-

tion to the present Government is so well-known that we intend a compliment when wo say that we are, in a Pickwickian sense, glad of the result. In all sincerity, we add that our pleasure is enhanced by the consideration that Sir D.Monro has lost his seat through no dishonorable conduct. No stigma whatever attaches to him. Never had man more occasion to exclaim, " Save me from my friends." The evidence in the trial discloses a state of things in Nelson pvovince, however, that we. were not, prepared for. Out of the fiery ordeal of the examination before the committee, Sir David alone has escaped unscathed. The Returning Officer was proved to have entirely misapprehended his duties, and ignored the very solemn obligation he took before a justice of the peace — •' I do solemnly declare that I will faithfully and impartially exercise and perform all the powers, authorities, and duties reposed iv or required of me, &c, and that J will not at any election attempt to ascertain for what candidate any person shall vote or have voted.' 1 He actually pleaded guilty to having acted tho part of the revising officer in deciding in secret, aud without giving miy chance of redress to the claimants, what claims he would send in to that officer, and what he would consign to the waste basket. His style of doing business was unique. The act expressly states that it was his duty to make up a list of all persons claiming to vote; but he knew better than that, and sent in only some. The scene between him and one of Sir David Monro's agents was amusingly reproduced in evidence. These two worthies went over the roll cogether, carefully marking off who were " right" and who were " not right. '' This ingenious Returning Officer, begiiming with openly defying the law in regard to claims, seems to have become hardened in official ingenuity as the case proceeded. He canvassed openly for votes, and, after the poll was closed, he allowed his deputy to violate his solemn obligation " not by word or act, or any other means vthatsoever, directly or indirectly, to divulge or discover, or aid in divulging or discovering" for what candidate any person voted. Nor is the latter much less blameworthy. His evidence sets forth that an elector came into the room exactly half a minute after four o'clock, and this very accurate observer of the time and reader of the act, knowing that it was his duty to close the poll, asked the opinion of the two scrutineers for the respective candidates. He was quite sure at the time that it was four o'clock, or, in other words, that it was his duty to close the poll. Yet he swears he was embarrassed, and consulted the scrutineers as to whether he should do his duty or not ! They, perhaps, being not (half-) minute observers, thought that the voter was in time, and recommended his vote being taken. The Deputy Returning Officer asked with a frantic eagerness, " For whom are you going to vote ?" and when answered, " For Parker," he did not then summon sufficient courage or virtue to do his duty, and peremptorily prevent any illegal voting. The plain inference is that the balf-minute was not so clearly marked by him at the time as several months afterwards. Plainly violating his solemn obligation, he next explains to his chief that tlie voter had declared his intention of voting for Parker after four o'clock. His firsS mistake in putting such a question rendered him guilty of a misdemeanor, and this negligent act of commission subjects him to a penalty of not less than ten, nor more than two hundred pounds. It would be an interesting question whether, in the event of this enquiry being answered with, " I intend to vote for Sir David Monro," the memory of this impartial Deputy- Returning Officer would have been so vivid and keen. The position he has taken up is so dangerous to himself, that we cannot help thinking he is a mere cat's-paw in the hands of others. His affidavit virtually sets forth, "I knew it was time to close the poll, but I did not do it. I took the vote after a consultation with the representatives of the candidates, who advised me to break the law, which I accordingly did. I then further broke the law myself by asking the elector for whom he was going to vote, and finding it to have been entirely illegal and contrary to the whole spirit and intention of the Ballot Act, I was further ' guilty of a misdemeanour' in ' aiding in divulging the same.' [ then take advantage of my own wrong and make an affidavit which, if true, renders me liable both to a criminal prosecution and to a pecuniary penalty." The scrutineer for Sir David Monro seems also to have acted a peculiar part. Nothing could have endeared him so much to his patron as an exposure of this illegal vote. Had he felt sure it was after four o'clock before the elector received the ballot paper, surely it would bave occurred to him lo mention a circumstance so vitally important. It is not a liltle strange, therefore, , that he remained silent for so many j weeks, and his memory only began to be inconveniently active after it had received the stimulus of Sir David Monro's solicitous letter ! If this disputed election has the effect of calling the attention of returning officers and scrutineers to the duties imposed on them by law, it will be a great public good. The charges of bribery and personation we shall refer to in our next. Meanwhile, we have much pleasure in repeating that Sir David Monro owes his deprivation only to the intemperate zeal of his friends and the gross and criminal neglect of the officials engaged. Tho promoters of the petition have, therefore, done a great public good in exposing the malfeasances that seem to have beem systematically carried on for years in the Province of Nelson. They have asserted the supremacy of the law over deliberate and chronic lawlessness; they have vindicated the rights of the people against official blundering and corruption. The franchise they have proved to be a trust conferred by the legisla ture on certain persons who comply

with certain prescribed conditions — a trust not to be used for selfish purposes at the will of the trustee, and not a right which can be acquired by conquest or inheritance, or disposed of by sale or testament They have shown that if a bad vote is given the system of ballot-voting which obtains in New Zealand effectually provides both for its discovery and ratification. They havo shown, moreover, that exalted rank and private and public reputation are not to . be pleaded against the enjoyment by the humblest of the rights conferred on him by law. They have vindicated the law, before which " all men are equal ;" maintained the purity of our elections ; and preserved the dignity and independence of our New Zealand House of Commons.