Wellington Independent WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1871.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3304, 27 September 1871, Page 2

Wellington Independent WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1871.

The " Nelson Examiner" of Saturday last has a very short, but vevy spiteful, article on the Motueka Election Petition. The case being now over, our contemporary's remarks are worth noting, only to illustrate the spirit of unfairness and the reckless disregard for facts which characterise certain sections of the colonial Press. " The personation cases," remarks our contemporary, " are remarkable for the strange coincidence of two votes having been given by persons amply qualified in every respect to vote, except that of correct registration, although their surnames and Christian names actually appeared on the roll." Now, it was proved by the evidence of the voters themselves that " their surnames and Christian names " never " appeared on the roll." Hagen swore that he had never applied to be registered, and it was proved by the affidavit of his own mother that at the time for sending in claims he had no claim to scud in, simply because he had not been in this wicked world long enough to have the qualification. He was under the age required by law. Tomlinson voted on a qualification which he swore was the qualification of another man Had the real Simon Pure turned up at the election, and wished to avail himself of the electoral right conferred on hira by statute law, he would have found his " claim jumped." It is monstrous for our contemporary to attempt to deceive the public any longer in this matter. The registration in both instances was perfectly correct. The Hagen whose name was on the roll was correctly registered, and would, doubtless, have voted at the election had he heen alive ; the Tomlinson whose name was on the roll was also correctly registeted, aod would, doubtless, have voted at the election had he not heen in Auckland that day. By the death of the former and the migration of the latter, two names were left on the roll, and two other men, under their persona or mask, voted who had neither the qualification set opp>osite the names on the electoral roll, nor ever jpretended they had. Hagen, as was proved by copy of the will produced, had no " freehold estate in possession" : he was therefore not the " Hagen freeholder" he professed to be by voting under that name and designation, and even if he had had a thousand freeholds he had not the one qualification which the committee had to look to, viz., his name being on the electoral roll, it being clearly impossible for him to antedute his own existence by two years ! " James Hagen," says the veracious" Examiner," nevertheless" had recently acquired his qualification by the demise of his father." If by " qualification" is meant tbe material qualification — the freehold ; then the following question and answer, ichich the " Examiner'" carefully suppresses, while professing to copy from the Independent's report, will suffice to show how reliable is the assertion : — " Mr Fitzherbert : Then are you a freeholder ? Hagen : The property is my mother's till her death, and then it becomes ours. Mr Bunny: He is not a freeholder at all ; tho land is held by his mother's trustees." If by qualification is meant the formal qualification, tbe being on the roll, then it is equally untruthful — his name not being on the roll, he having never made application to have it registered thereon. Thus we have seen the freehold was not " acquired by the demise of his father," and it requires no argument to prove thafc the demise of the father does not entitle the son without registration to vote in his name. To be on the roll presupposes, not a hereditary claim, but a claim made by a voter 21 years old possessing a qualification to bo then and there set out. Hagen, junior, made no such claim, because first he was not then 21 yenrs old, and, secondly, because he was not then (and is not now) possessed oi tbe

qualification designated on the roll. There never was a clearer case, and all the " darkening by words" of the " Examiner" serves only to show how far the facts may be distorted to serve the j temporary purpose of petty party spirit. | Toinlinson voted as " Henry Tomlinson, householder." In evidence he swore, ] " I never was a householder." But the registration was correct, being the natne j and qualification of another man altogether. As well might any John Smith go into the bank and attempt j to draw out all the money belonging to j another man, because bis name was John Smith too, as for a voter not a householder, and not even on the roll, to claim to vote on the qualification and registration of another man, simply because bis name is the same. The ezperimentum cruris of this case is indicated above : the real " Henry Tomlinson, householder, Waimea West, part of section 133, number on the roll 501," might have presented himself at the polling-booth, and whexe would Henry Tomlinson, freeholder, not on the roll, have been ? Archbishop Tilletson has said that a certain class of people should have good memories. The " Examiner has a \ery bad one. Having stated that the two votes in dispute had been given by persons whose '* surnames aud Christian names actu. ally appeared on the roll," our contemporary five lines farther down states that " the name ofthe Henry Tomlinson who voted did not appeal' on the roll !" Was ever such unveracity so self-ex-posed? If not on the roll, what is the use of stating that these persons (Hagen and Tomlinson) " were amply qualified in every other respect to vote." That is only another way of saying that they possessed everything but the right to vote ! Sir David Munro is still doubtless " qualified in every respect " to sit for Motueka but one, and that is that his name is not now on the writ. An elector, when he enters the voting booth, has only one qualification to plead, and that is that Ms name is on tlie roll. All his other qualifications go for nothing. If his name is on the roll (rightly or wrongly) he can vote ; if his name is not on the roll (rightly or wrongly) he cannot vote. Hagen's name was not, and could not have been on the roll : Tomlinson's might, but was not The attempt to get over these two facts by ' mis-statements is as disingenuous as it is abortive. The peroration, therefore, | about "high principle" above "party i pettiness" is singularly infelicitous, j Sir David Monro, we feel sure, must detest the want of "principle" apparent in this defence, and as he retires, as we have said before, without a stigma, any disgrace that attaches to his unseating falls to be distributed (it is useless to estimate in what proportions) among his Nelson friends, comprising the Kevising Ofiicer, who allowed the dead man's vote, the Returning Officer who canvassed for him and went over the roll with his agent, the deputy who ascertained and divulged how Starnes had voled, the agent Bell who paid the twelve Germans sixteen shillings a bead, the Germans who took the money and the refreshments, and the . Nelson Examiner" that ba9 attempted all' through tbe case to mislead public J opinion by distorting the facts and raising false issues iv a manner never before equalled in the annals of journalism.