PUBLIC PETITIONS M TO Z COMMITTEE (REPORT OF) ON THE PETITION OF COLEMAN PHILLIPS, OF FEATHERSTON, TOGETHER WITH PETITION, MINUTES OF EVIDENCE, AND EXHIBITS.

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1898 Session I, I-02a

I.—2a

1898. NEW ZEALAND.

PUBLIC PETITIONS M TO Z COMMITTEE (REPORT OF) ON THE PETITION OF COLEMAN PHILLIPS, OF FEATHERSTON, TOGETHER WITH PETITION, MINUTES OF EVIDENCE, AND EXHIBITS.

Brought up on the 2nd August, 1898; ordered to be printed, 15th September, 1898.

R E P O X T.

Petitioner states that at the last general election he was a candidate for a seat in the House of Eepresentatives as member for the Electorate of Wairarapa; that, through the action of the Eeturning Officer, Mr. Adam Armstrong, in fixing the 25th November, 1896, instead of the 27th November, as the latest day for receiving nominations, his own nomination, presented on the 26th November, was returned as being too late ; that the action of the Eeturning Officer was not in accordance with " The Electoral Act Amendment Act, 1896 " ; and that he has suffered great personal inconvenience and loss thereby. He prays that for the future greater care may be exercised in selecting Eeturning Officers ; and for other relief. I am directed to report : That, in the opinion of the Committee, the evidence goes to show that, during the last general election, the conduct of Mr. Adam Armstrong, Eeturning Officer for the Electorate of Wairarapa, was irregular and improper ; that the Committee thinks it is expedient in the future the Government should make careful inquiries before appointing Eeturning Officers; and that the Committee recommends the Government to amend " The Electoral Act Amendment Act, 1896," clause 15, with the view of definitely fixing the day and hour in which nominations for candidates for the House of Eepresentatives shall close. E. Mebedith, 2nd August, 1898. Chairman.

PETITION. To the Honourable the Members of the House of Eepresentatives of New Zealand in Parliament assembled. The petition of Coleman Phillips, of " The Knoll," Featherston, a barrister-at-law of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, humbly showeth, — 1. That your petitioner was a candidate for Parliament at the last general election for the Wairarapa Electorate, Messrs. W. C. Buchanan and J. T. M. Hornsby being also candidates. 2. That Mr. Adam Armstrong was appointed the Eeturning Officer, to the general surprise of the whole district. 3. That the proper time (as fixed by section 15 of " The Electoral Act Amendment Act, 1896 ") for receiving nominations was up to Friday evening, the 27th day of November, 1896, " being the evening of the seventh day before the day of election " —viz., 4th December, 1896. i. That, at 10.30 a.m. on the morning of Thursday, 26th November, your petitioner saw the Eeturning Officer, the said Mr. Adam Armstrong, with respect to his accepting his nomination, but he was informed that he, Mr. Armstrong, had closed the time for receiving nominations the previous day (Wednesday, 25th November). 5. That, at 11.15 a.m. on the said Thursday, your petitioner tendered Mr. Armstrong his nomination-paper in proper form, which he declined to accept. i—l. 2a.

2

I.—2a

6. That, at 11.45 a.m., your petitioner posted Mr. Armstrong his nomination-paper, which he returned to him the same day. 7. That, on Monday, the 30th of November, your petitioner again sent the Eeturning Officer his nomination-paper, for the third time, which he returned to him on the Ist December, 1896. 8. That, in acting thus, the said Mr. Adam Armstrong did so, in your petitioner's opinion, in order to favour the candidature of the Government candidate, Mr. J. T. M. Hornsby. 9. That the foundation of our constitutional liberties are at; stake if Eeturning Officers are allowed to act in this manner in future unchecked. 10. That the said Mr. Adam Armstrong is well known to be a man against whom it would be folly to lay an action either for damages or expenses, so that the remedies provided by " The Election Petitions Act, 1880," afforded no relief in your petitioner's case. 11. That your petitioner had been three times round the Wairarapa Electorate, addressing the electors, at much personal expense and trouble ; and, from assurances since received, he believes that he would have stood as good a chance of being returned to Parliament as either of the other two candidates had his nomination been accepted. 12. That the questions involved in this humble petition are neither local nor personal, but affecting a great principle of constitutional liberty. 13. Gaining an action for £5,000 damages against the said Eeturning Officer in the Supreme Court would have afforded no relief to your petitioner, Mr. Armstrong's pecuniary circumstances are such that your petitioner would have had not only to find the money or bond for £200 required by the Act to prosecute him, but also to pay the whole costs of the prosecution. No such liability is thrown upon the respondent. It is, therefore, as everything against nothing. A Eeturning Officer of no substance, partial to the Government of the day, is consequently protected in every way by the Act. The Government of the day, no matter to which party it belongs, has only to appoint impecunious Eeturning Officers and the elections can be influenced in any required direction. Wherefore your petitioner humbly prays that your honourable House will take the circumstances of the case into your gracious consideration, and ordain that in future only responsible men of fair means and position should be appointed as Eeturning Officers ; and, further, afford such relief as to your wisdom may seem meet. And your petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray, &c. Coleman Phillips.

I.—2a

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Feiday, 19th November, 1897. —(Mr. Mekedith, Chairman.) The Chairman : After what passed at our last meeting, I thought it right to consult the Speaker on the question of summoning witnesses and defraying their expenses. Mr. Speaker informed me that it was not parliamentary usage to summon witnesses for petitioners at the public expense. In cases involving great principles it was sometimes done. Mr. Phillips : As I knew this question would come up, at the last meeting of the Committee, you will remember, I declined to go to any expense in summoning witnesses. But, however, in order to meet the wishes of honourable members, I did ask two or three witnesses to attend. One of them declined to do so. I think the majority declined to attend unless they were subpoenaed— so that lam in this position: that I have no witnesses. The power rests entirely with yourself. If you desire this matter to be gone into, I think the witnesses will not attend unless you summon them. I have, however, one witness here who has kindly consented to come before the Committee. As his time is much occupied, I would feel obliged if the Committee would allow him to be examined on a few relevant questions and then allow him to leave. I mean Mr. Bell. The Chairman : I do not think at this stage of the inquiry it is desirable that Mr. Bell should come before the Committee and give evidence, for this reason: the Committee might desire to ask Mr. Bell questions. It might, perhaps, be better to have his examination later on, at a later stage of the inquiry. Mr. Phillips : Mr. Bell is Mayor of this city (Wellington), and his time is much occupied. If he is not heard now, it may be impossible to have his attendance again. The Chairman: Very well, then we will take Mr. Bell's evidence now, as desired by Mr. Phillips. Mr. H. D. Bell examined. Mr. H. D. Bell: I understand that Mr. Phillips asks me to give evidence in respect to the petition in the licensing election. I conducted the case for the petitioner. It was proved, in regard to the conduct of the Eeturning Officer, that he refused the nomination of two gentlemen who were candidates on the ground that they were shareholders in the Wairarapa Farmers' Association. It was proved that Mr. Deller had four shares, and Mr. Adam Armstrong, finding that he had four shares, refused his nomination. It was alleged that Mr. Armstrong went out of his way to find this out. The point in the case was this : A Eeturning Officer cannot be cast in costs unless he has been guilty of something worse than a mere mistake or an error of judgment. That was the contention. The Magistrate who heard the petition was of opinion that Mr. Armstrong's conduct was the result of more than an error of judgment, and costs were allowed against him. I understood that Mr. Phillips offered to adduce instances of the Eeturning Officer's misconduct. It was on subsequent proceedings that the misconduct of the Eeturning Officer was indicated. I understood that the question then was whether he was a fit man to hold the position of Eeturning Officer. He is Eeturning Officer under the Licensing Act because he holds that position under the Electoral Act. The Chairman: This is how his other conduct has come to be relevant. Mr. Phillips : My nomination was refused. Mr. Armstrong refused two other nominations ; and what is complained of is that this was done through partisanship. The Chairman : That, acting from strong partisanship, he refused your nomination ? Mr. Bell: I understood that the question of partisanship was proved by his conduct in the subsequent election. Mr. Phillips : It was proved that Armstrong's refusal to receive my nomination was worse than a mistake: that it was the result of partisanship. That was shown by the way he behaved immediately after, when he refused the nominations of Messrs. Deller and Grace. He went out of his way to refuse those two other nominations through partisanship. The Chairman: I understand that Mr. Bell appeared for the prosecution in the case of refusing your nomination ? Mr. Bell: I was saying that the question of costs came on for determination, after the Magistrate held that the grounds of Mr. Armstrong's objection to the nomination was ludicrous. It was then the question of costs arose. Costs cannot be given against a Eeturning Officer in the matter of an election unless he has done something more than having committed a mistake or error of judgment. The Magistrate, in delivering his judgment, said he had conducted himself in such a way that he ought to°be visited with costs, and the Magistrate made the order for him to. pay costs. Mr. Armstrong subsequently sued for his expenses. One of the defences to that action alleged that the judgment of the Magistrate went upon the ground that he had been guilty of misconduct—that he had refused these nominations on simply ridiculous grounds. The Chief Justice, in deciding the case on other grounds against Armstrong, gave an opinion that, if that plea were proved, he should be deprived of his expenses on that ground. ' 1. Mr. Armstrong.] Was this petition defended ?—You were in Court. 2. Did I not say that the County Council would not find the means for a solicitor ?—You did say that. 3. I said in my evidence that members of the Committee who were going to be nominated were original shareholders ?—I think you did say that. I—l. 2a.

L—2a

4

4. Did I not tell you that I had to go and fix up a polling-booth, and that on the way I called on the secretary of the company to ask if Deller was a shareholder to let me know before the election. I said that the Colonial Secretary had sent me the list of nominations? —It was stated that you had gone out of your way to get certain information. It was upon that, and the other evidence proving partisanship, that you were ordered to pay costs. 5. Did not the Chief Justice say in giving his decision that the Eeturning Officer was the wrong party ?—I said the Chief Justice, giving his judgment on other grounds, expressed an opinion on this point, that the Eeturning Officer could not recover his expenses. 6. Did he not say that, if it was proved that he " wilfully " did so, he could not recover?—l do not think there is the word " wilful" there : I am not prepared to say on my memory that the word " wilful " is not in it. 7. lam prepared to say that it is, and I will get you a copy of His Honour's judgment: what he said was, that if I had wilfully refused to receive the nominations I would not be entitled to my expenses?—l cannot speak positively, but Ido not think the word "wilfully" is there :I do not think that word was used. 8. Mr. Phillips.'] Do you remember Armstrong, when he was called on by the Magistrate to defend himself, saying " I offer no defence " ?—Those were not the words : he said, as the County Council would not provide him a lawyer, he did not think he could go into his defence : but he may have said so; it was I who put him in the box. 9. You do not remember his saying that he had no defence ? —I do not remember; he may have said so. 10. Do you remember him saying in his own evidence, " I am a political opponent of Mr. Deller " ?—Yes ; I asked him the question. 11. Deller's was one of the nominations he refused?— Yes. 12. The Chairman.] For the Licensing Bench? —Yes. 13. Mr. Phillips.] This matter was carried out on political terms?—He said that Deller was a political opponent: he said he would not bother himself about those four shareholders in the Wairarapa Farmers' Association had not this matter been opened. 14. Do you remember his saying that the nominations were refused for the purpose of keeping off the Committee a body of his political opponents ?—I do not think so. I may have put it to him in that form. My impression is, that he frankly admitted that he would not have taken the trouble to inquire about the shares had they not been political opponents. 15. Do you remember the words in the Stipendiary Magistrate's judgment ? Were they, "I am of opinion that the Returning Officer had no right to refuse Deller's nomination "?—Yes, he said more than that. 16. He said also, "I think the Returning Officer exceeded his duty "?—He said that, but I do not recollect the exact words. 17. Also that " the Eeturning Officer went out of his way to discover qualifications upon which he might reject the candidate's nomination "■?—l cannot tell you the exact words. 18. Do you recollect him saying that it was necessary for the public safety that Eeturning Officers should recognise their responsibilities ? —Yes. 19. Mr. Armstrong.] With reference to my saying that I would not bother myself—was not that in answer to your question, why I did not go to Mr. Deller, and I replied that it was not my duty to run after candidates?—lt is very likely, but I do not remember. Mr. Buchanan examined. 20. The Chairman.] You presented this petition of Mr. Coleman Phillips?—Yes, I presented the petition at Mr. Coleman Phillips's request. 21. Do you desire to give evidence on the petition ? —The only statement I have to make on the question is this : That it was a matter of public notoriety in the district which I represent that three candidates were to be proposed for the representation of the electorate in Parliament. It was also a matter of notoriety that only two candidates were accepted by the Returning Officer at the nominations: that the nomination of the third candidate (Mr. Coleman Phillips), though admittedly presented within the time prescribed by the Act, and under the conditions prescribed by the Act, was rejected. Public opinion at the rejection of Mr. Phillips's nomination was very strong; it appeared to be conclusive of either gross partiality on the part of the Eeturning Officer or absolute ignorance of his duty. It was also a matter of public notoriety that when subsequently a petition was presented against my return as the representative of the district, the Eeturning Officer had largely connected himself with that petition, and that one of the first counts in that petition was that the election was illegal because the nomination of Coleman Phillips had been rejected. No further proceedings have taken place in the matter until the presentation of the petition now under consideration of the Committee. I may say that personally I have taken no steps to get up details of the matter, although feeling very strongly that the proceedings in connection with the election generally had been very improperly conducted ; not only in regard to the rejection of Mr. Coleman Phillips's nomination, but in regard to other matters as well.' I do not know that I have anything further to say than that my position as member for the district suggested that I should abstain from active interference in this matter. Unless called on by your-' self as Chairman, or by any other member of the Committee, I did not feel myself called upon to come and voluntarily give evidence here which might be construed as of a prejudiced character against the Returning Officer. 22. Mr. Phillips.] I might have upset the election by petitioning against your return ? The only reply I can make to that is that, considering as I did that the rejection of your nomination papers was illegal, it follows that the election must have been declared void. 22a. The country would have been put to the expense of another election ?—That also follows.

1.—2 a

5

23. I had no discussion with you personally on this subject except asking you to present the petition ? None whatever: there was no reference whatever to this particular matter between yourself or myself either personally or by letter. 24. Mr. Armstrong,] What other matters with reference to the election have you letters about?—l do not know whether the Committee is prepared to go into the various matters connected with the elections that were under your control as Eeturning Officer or not —I am at the disposal of the Committee. . . The Chairman: I think it would be better if Mr. Armstrong would confine himself to some particular point. 25. Mr. Armstrong.] He made mention that there were other matters that were not regular— I want to find out from him what these matters are which he refers to ?—As you have put the question, and I take the silence of the Committee to indicate consent, I will repeat a statement made by one of the Deputy Eeturning Officers. 26. Who was it?— Mr. Andrew. 27. The Chairman.] Was it in writing or verbal? —Verbal; the statement was that the Eeturning Officer wished to know which way Mr. Andrew's personal vote would be cast. Another matter that came under my notice was that in appointing scrutineers to act for me at the pollingbooths, Mr. Armstrong promised that he would secure that his Deputy Eeturning Officer would permit'the scrutineers whose names I gave him to act. I relied on his statement to that effect. Mr. Armstrong was perfectly well aware that by course of mail it was impossible for a letter to reach the Deputy Eeturning Officer in time, and yet he sent the intimation by post. Certain difficulties consequently arose on the day of the election. I may mention one particular place called Homewood. 28. Mr. Armstrong.] When did'you send me in your list of scrutineers ?—I am not prepared to state the day I sent in the list of scrutineers; but I have stated what took place between us. 29. Was it not on the Wednesday that you sent them in; the election was on Friday. On the Thursday did you not come to me and ask me whether I had sent the note to the deputy ? Did I not tell you that on the receipt of the nominations I wrote out the list ? Did you not ask me to write a second note, and I said it would be delivered ? Did I not tell you I was too busy to do so, and that if you wrote the note I would see that it was delivered ?—You assured me that you would personally arrange with the Deputy Eeturning Officer, and I took that assurance. 30. You were bound by a certain clause of the Act to send me a list of the scrutineers ?— What you stated to me was this : that you would personally arrange with the Deputy Eeturning Officer that those scrutineers whose names I gave you would be accepted as my scrutineers. _ It was also discussed between us that the mail would be too late to reach the Deputy Eeturning Officer before the day of election. 31. Did you not go out to get the notices written, and did you not come back to me m the office, sign them, and send them off?—No; you were to take your own steps to see that these scrutineers were accepted by the Deputy Eeturning Officer. 32. You state that I was to see the Deputy Eeturning Officer some thirty-five miles away?— The thing is quite distinct in my memory : it happened as I have said. 33. You mentioned public opinion being strong about my conduct? —What point are you referring to ? ~'... , . a T 34. Will you mention the names of those who expressed an opinion against my conduct I—l made no reference to names. 35. Mr. Holland.] Did you put the notices in in consequence of something you saw in the newspapers? —No ; the notices were necessary before scrutineers could act. 36. Mr. Lang.] Was Mr. Armstrong's name publicly mentioned as a probable candidate ?— Yes 37. Does it state what particular side he was likely to take ?—There was no doubt as to the particular side on which Mr. Armstrong would be if he came forward as a candidate. 38. That was before his appointment as Eeturning Officer?—lt must have been, but I cannot give you the exact date. 39. Then, it was in consequence of his being a probable candidate that he was appointed Eeturning Officer?—lt will, of course, occur to Mr. Lang that Mr. Armstrong's name could not possibly have been mentioned as a candidate after he was appointed Eeturning Officer. 40. Mr. Armstrong.] Was it not a " fishing " leader in the Wairarapa Daily which published my name ?—lt is impossible for me to give any answer to that. I know nothing of any " fishing " business. Mr. Coleman Phillips s Statement. Mr. Phillips : The nominations were closed by Mr. Armstrong on Wednesday, the 25th of November ; the proper time to have closed the nominations was Friday, the 27th: he therefore closed them two days before the proper time. I saw Mr. Armstrong on the Thursday morning (the 26th), about 10.30 a.m., in the presence of Mr. Baylis and Mr. Driscoll. He said that he had closed the time for receiving nominations yesterday. I told him that I had been out at the back, and did not know it. He said " You could have seen the newspapers." I told him I had not. I said that the rule to close was seven days before the day of election, as provided by the Act. He said "I have been advised that the conduct of the election, after the writs are issued, belongs to me. He said he had fixed yesterday. I then said, "Do you refuse to accept my nomination?" He said, "Yes." I said then, " I will post it to you." He _ said, "It is no use ■ I will only return it to you." I had the nomination-paper filled in, as my intention was to post it in Grey town. I got three electors to sign it and took it to Mr._ Armstrong by 11 15 a m I said, " Well, Mr. Armstrong, this is my nomination-paper, and here is a cheque for £10- I am just going to change it to give to you." He replied, "It is no use. You can post it if you like, but I will return it to you." I said, " Very well, then, I will post it. But

6

I.—2a

will you not telegraph to the Colonial Secretary ?" He said, "No; certainly not." I said, "Will you not extend the time to receive nominations to the seven days provided by the Act ?" We then counted up the days, excluding Sunday, and we found that there were eight clear days. He said, " No; certainly not." On Friday, the 27th of November, at 11 a.m., I went to see Mr. Fairbrother, whose office was the head-quarters of the Government party. I found Mr. Armstrong there; he also appeared to use it as his office. I said to Mr. Fairbrother, " Do you think it will be of any use to tender my nomination-paper again to him." Mr. Fairbrother said, " You can ask him if you like"; and he called him out of the office. I said, " Well, Mr. Armstrong, I wish to tender you my nomination-paper again if you have not the one I gave you yesterday." He said, " I carefully returned it to you yesterday by the afternoon train." "Well," I said, "I can now give you another." He said it would be no good., ashe should not receive it; and he added, " Just you show me in the Act how I can accept a nomination after the time for it has closed." I said, " There is plenty of time for you to put an extension of the time in the Standard, which does not publish until 2 o'clock, or by the Times, which does not close until 5 o'clock; that committees often extended their time in case of racing meetings to receive nominations." He refused; and I was advised by certain of his friends in the room not to " bother," that I would " get in next time," that they had a good chance with Mr. Hornsby of turning out Mr. Buchanan. On the Friday afternoon, at 4 p.m., I called on Mr. Hornblow, J.P. ; his two sons were there, and whilst I was pointing out the difference between the 75th section of the Act of 1893 and section 53 of the Act of 1896 a young lad brought in two voting-papers for the ballot. I think he said they were printing the ballot-papers already. Young Mr. Hornblow said, " You are out of it" ;to which I replied "Do not be so sure of that." Hornblow, junior, had the contract for printing the papers. I said, " Let me see those, if you please." As they were lying open on the table I could not help seeing them. One was a green paper, the other white. On the white were three names printed, " Buchanan," " Hornsby," and my own. Mine was scratched out in pencil. On the green paper there were only two names " Buchanan," and " Hornsby." Young Hornblow said he would telegraph to Mr. Armstrong so aa to make certain about my name being left out. Mr. Hornblow said he had had a reply from Armstrong, who said he was to go on printing and leave my name out. I said to Mr. Hornblow, " What is your time." He replied, " Four o'clock." I said, " The time does not close until 5 o'clock." [Papers put in evidence : Nomination-papers with Armstrong's refusal indorsed, Exhibit No. 1. Armstrong's advertisement of the polling-day, Exhibit No. 2. Telegram to Colonial Secretary and reply, Exhibit No. 3. Notice of polling-day, Exhibit No. 4.] I next telegraphed to the Colonial Secretary requesting that His Excellency be moved to interfere under the Electoral Act of 1893. [Telegram and answer of the Colonial Secretary put in, Exhibit No. 5.] I sent my nomination, with the money enclosed, £10, to Mr. Armstrong in the ordinary way, just telling him that if he refused again he would be laying himself open to a severe penalty. It was strictly an official letter of mine. The election was not held until the 4th December. There is a letter from Armstrong of the Ist December in which he writes, " Your papers are returned. We know now that there is one subject in the Wairarapa fit for a lunatic asylum." [Exhibit No. 6.] On the back of my nomination-paper [see Exhibit No. 1] he wrote, " Nominations closed on the 25th, therefore enclosed are returned." I consider that indorsement very important. Then, on the 4th December I went to the chief polling-place and handed in this protest. [Exhibit No. 7.] I took a witness with me; but Mr. Armstrong treated the protest with the most supreme contempt. Mr. Eraser: What section of the 1893 Act was it that you referred to just now ? Mr. Phillips : Clause 168. This Committee, like his Honour Mr. Justice Conolly at _ the trial of the petition by Armstrong's friends afterwards against Mr. Buchanan, may be of opinion that, while Armstrong's proceedings were illegal, he evidently did not understand the Act under which he was working. Judge Conolly did not know Mr. Armstrong. lam sorry to say it, as I must say it to his face. An Hon. Member : I think, if Mr. Phillips is going to quote a judgment of the Supreme Court we ought to have it here. The Chairman : Mr. Armstrong objects. Mr. Phillips : If he objects to what I say—■ — The Chairman : Not to what you say, but he objects to what purports to be an extract from a judgment of the Supreme Court. Mr. Phillips : The whole question depends upon this : viz., whether Armstrong made a mistake or whether he acted out of pure partisanship. lam going to show that Mr. Armstrong made no mistake ; that he is a man perfectly unscrupulous on any course he may take to suit his own purpose. Here is the proof. One witness whom I asked you to subpoena declined to come. He states certain facts, but declined to attend. The Chairman : Are you prepared to put that in evidence. Mr. Phillips : lam not prepared to put in his letter without his permission. I will ask the clerk to read the letter 1 sent you stating the names of the witnesses I wish to call, and what they were to prove. [Letter from Mr. Phillips to the Chairman, asking that certain witnesses should be summoned, Exhibit No. B.] The Chairman: If you, Mr. Phillips, are prepared to defray the expenses of the witnesses you want summoned, the Committee will have them summoned. Mr. Phillips : I am about £160 already out of pocket through Mr. Armstrong, and I cannot afford to go to any more expense. The whole of this case depends upon the witnesses. Ido not say it out of any disrespect, but I cannot go to great expense in presenting this petition. I thought the Committee would see the importance of this case, and itself summon the necessary witnesses. I cannot put in this letter until authorised by the writer. I cannot give Mr. Gardiner's evidence. I cannot prove that Armstrong canvassed for Mr. Hornsby, the Government candidate, against Mr. Buchanan and myself—that Armstrong canvassed for subscriptions to pay Mr. Hornsby's expenses—unless I am allowed to bring here the witnesses who can speak to the facts.

7

I.—2a.

The Chairman : You are allowed to bring any witnesses you please to support your own statement, but you must do so at your own expense. Mr. Phillips : Mr. Deller, the Mayor of Carterton—l should like to have him summoned as a witness. The Chairman : That rests entirely with you. Mr. Phillips : You debar me bringing the evidence necessary to prove my case. The Chairman : I do not debar you making any statement by which you choose to substantiate your case. You are at liberty to bring any witnesses you choose. The Committee will summon them for you so long as you are prepared to pay the expenses of those witnesses. Mr. Phillips : That does not appear to me to be fair. However, I am prepared to make a statement. The witnesses will probably come if they are subpoenaed ; they will not all come at my request. I have produced two, Mr. H. D. Bell and Mr. Buchanan. There is the case of Armstrong making a false affidavit and swearing to the contrary. I can prove that. The present case is a question whether Armstrong's conduct was purely mistake or deliberate partisanship. It may have begun by a mistake, but directly he found the advantage it gave Mr. Hornsby he stuck to his mistake for purely partisan purposes. He was asked by Sir Robert Stout, " Why did you make that affidavit, seeing that it is false? " (substituting " 11 " for " 12 " or " 12 " for " 11 " in his affidavit). Armstrong said it was "wrong," that he had "made a mistake." He was again asked how he came to make a false oath. He said it was " wrong" and that he had "made a mistake." When he was asked why he had also sworn falsely in Court, he said it was a " mistake." Any person can see at once that a man who would do such things as these only makes " mistakes " to suit his own purposes. Then he went into the box to try and show that "12 " was " 11." In both cases he admitted he was wrong. Armstrong was to have been a candidate himself. I will put in an extract from the Wairarapa Weekly Times of the 11th November, 1896, which will show the position. [Extract put in, Exhibit No. 9.] Mr Armstrong, instead of being a candidate, was appointed Returning Officer. This jealousy between the townships was recognised to the extent that Mr. Seddon was advised to nominate an outsider, and Mr. Hornsby was sent up. What I say is that he, Armstrong, should never have been Returning Officer. Mr. Armstrong invited Mr. Buick (who had been member for the Wairau) to contest the seat against Buchanan. This is an extract from the Standard of the 29th October, 1896. [Exhibit No. 10.] Armstrong went to " Mr. Seddon's meetings," to Mr. Hornsby's "party meetings " and " committee " meetings until he was warned by men of his own side to keep away. I can prove that, for this is Armstrong's evidence before the Court, in which he says that he " attended political meetings." He said he had attended political meetings after the writ was issued. Was that right of a Returning Officer? Here is a report of the trial of Mr. Buchanan's election petition from the Wairarapa Observer, 9th February, 1897, got up principally at Armstrong's instigation. In order to show there was no mistake in my case, and that the matter was one of deliberate partisanship, he afterwards, as Returning Officer for the Licensing Bench, refused to receive the nominations of two other gentlemeji. That was done purely out of partisanship. I can prove that from his own words at the trial. He said he " would not defend his own action in the licensing matter." A man must be pretty bad who would not defend himself. Armstrong also stated that there were two solicitors engaged : only Mr. Bell was engaged. Then, again, his office was the head-quarters of Mr. Hornsby's party. As Returning Officer, Ido not think he ought to haVe shown that bias. Then, Mr. Armstrong stated that he had not spoken to Mr. Deller since 1882. I do not think that I have spoken to Armstrong since 1882 either. The reason was—l do not like to use a strong expression, but I must use the word; there is no other term to apply to it. He " swindled "me out of £60 by getting me to indorse a promissory note under false pretences. Mr. Armstrong: What date? Mr. Phillips : I cannot state the precise date, but it was about the year 1882. And he treated others the same. I have never recognised Armstrong in the street since, nor spoken to him, until these election matters took place, and I had to go to him to give in my nomination-papers. The thing was so cold-blooded that I could not get rid of the thought of it. That was one of the reasons why honourable and straightforward settlers were surprised at Armstrong being appointed Returning Officer. The Committee may think, in the matter of refusing my nomination, that I should have taken action under the electoral laws. I wish to point out to the Committee why I could not do so. Armstrong is a man of no substance :he has been twice bankrupt, and is well known to be impecunious still. lam sorry to have to say it. The position of a Returning Officer is different from that of a private individual. When the Election Act of 1880 was passed Resident Magistrates were the Returning Officers. At present there is no remedy against a Returning Officer if he is impecunious. The only remedy against a Returning Officer who has been twice a bankrupt is by petition. May Ibe allowed to quote a precedent ? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Phillips : At the time of the Stuarts The Chairman : You are reading some paper, will you put that in ? Mr. Phillips : I will. In the year 1685 the King sent officers of his guards practically to act as Returning Officers and manipulate the elections then being held in England. It was a Parliament of about four hundred and forty members. The King got returned four hundred members, most of them exactly " suited to his mind." There were not more than forty members he could object to; but petitions came up from all parts of the country complaining of the partisanship and violence used at the elections. That was many years ago, and under the Stuarts, one of the worst periods in English history. My reason for referring to this is that Mr. Seddon made a mistake in coming up to Carterton at all. His interference caused Mr. Armstrong to completely lose his head. The Chairman ; That is your opinion ?

8

1.-2 a,

Mr Phillips ■ Yes. I may state that Mr. Seddon has since expressed his regret to me. It is only fair that I should say that Mr. Seddon did not know Mr. Armstrong. In further reference to th y pre edent I quote I may state that, notwithstanding King James got four bandn A member " suited to his mind " still his interference in the elections lost him his throne. Before that Parliament was half over he had to leave the kingdom. On the 24th December last a telegram was received m thkcolony from Canada that twenty-seven Eeturning Officers had been arrested on a charge o conspiring to defeat the popular will at the last June elections there. If we are to have a number of Eetuming Officers appointed to act as Armstrong has done here there is no hope of a free ParUament If we have Eeturning Officers they should be fairly impartial men who should be appointed for their integrity, to conduct our elections in future. They should be fairly independent men of some means and position. The polling-places should be lessened in number, so that the Deputy Eeturning Officers should also be impartial. I ask the Committee that my expenses incurred in the contest for the Wairarapa seat, which I might have won, and in presenting this pet tion be paid out of consolidated revenue, and an amount for damages exactly equal to those I could have recovered in the Supreme Court. Of such great importance do I consider this matter that I ask that this petition may be printed and made one of precedent ; that legislation of some sort should be passed to check the practices of which this man Armstrong has been guilty ; and more particularly that Ministers of the Crown refrain in future from interfering in elections outside the places they personally represent.

Thubsday, 2nd December, 1897. Mr. N. Geace examined. 1 The Chairman 1 I believe your name is Mr. N. Grace, sheep-farmer, at Carterton ?—Yes. 2 You are s—ned to give evidence on behalf of Mr. Coleman Phillips on the petition before the Committee respecting matters in connection with the last general election foi he Wairaram District ?—I do not know that I can give evidence. I was a candidate for the Licensing SSS My nomination was refused and turned. Ido not know that I can say anything further. Mr. Armstrong took upon himself to say that I was disqualified and could no act on account of holding two shares in this co-operative association. As to whether it was Ins duty to do that 3°° r Mr pK£«fDo you think it was right of Mr. Armstrong to have refused either your in the district in regard to Mr. Armstrong 1-1 do DOt k s n °Do you think Mr. Armstrong is a fit and proper person to be a Eeturning Officer 1-1 think Vim nolitical bias is too great to be a Eeturning Officer. ~ P 6 Do you think in the matter of my petition considerable partisanship was shown by Mr. Armstrong as a Eeturning Officer ?—I am not prepared to say that. ~__„,. , 7 wL any partisanship shown in your own case?-No. I think that Mr. Deller beingasharfeholder of the farmers' co-operative association, and my name being on the list, knew that he could nOt b B 6 tf ISSSoBm: way to disqualify Mr. Deller or yourself ?_Not to my Armstrong, do you desire to ask the witness any questions?-Yes. 10 Mr Armstrong.] You were not standing on the same side of the Licensing Committee as Mr Deller were you?—l do not know that there were sides. I was an independent member 11 WalnoVthere what they.call a publicans' party and a prohibition party ?-I do not think that was the case at the last election. 12. Do not you know that the publicans met and selected five candidates ?— Yes. 13. Was your name amongst those five ?—No. 14 Were you not nominated at all by the other side ?—No. 15! Was not the other side prepared to support you?— Not to my knowledge. lam generally supported throughout the district. 16 You were rejected by the publican party ?—Not to my knowledge. 17 You were reiected ?—I do not know whether it was a case of rejection. 18 Were there not eight or, say, seven candidates nominated? You were nominated on the other side ?—I refused to be nominated by either party. . • , o m ~„ T h»A 19. Mr. Field.] How many shares in the co-operative association have you .'-Two. 1 had onl lo St V b o e u°s™y e Mr h Dd h ler d was also a shareholder ?-I believe so. His name was also on the list of sh^ eh °JJ r * aid you were not QOmina ted in the interest of either party ?-I was nominated independently. 22 You are not a Prohibitionist?— JNo. AiAataO T 23' Mr Monk.] Is the holding of shares in a company a disqualification to a candidate -1 do not think so. I have had lawyers' advice, and they say it is not. I hold shares in a farmers XiS n 'Yousaythe refusal of the licensing nominations was not carried out on POHtl 25 al lupTotinglS y°oS y a Sa e k, Armstrong's own evidence in the Eesident Magistrate's Court in S he states that this matter was carried out on political grom,ds-this rom a report of one of the Wairarapa papers of Mr. Armstrong's own evidence ?-It might have been. 9fi Was it carried out on political grounds or not?— Not to my knowledge 27' Were you not interested in the case when it came before the Court ?-Not particularly.

9

I.—2a.

Mr. Coleman Phildips examined. 28. Mr. Armstrong .] You said you were away when these nominations were received. Did you not see this advertisement [See Exhibit No. 2] ? Where were you when this advertisement appeared?—l was out at the back; I fancy I was at Taueru or Blairlogie. I never saw that advertisement. 29. There is some distance between the Taueru and Blairlogie—which were you at ?—1 could not say. 30. Will you say that you were not at North Featherston when this advertisement appeared'? —I do not believe I was. lam almost certain I was not. I believe that advertisement came out on the Friday. Perhaps you will say when it appeared. Mr. Armstrong : It was on the Saturday. Mr. Phiclips : It is very wrong to have only four or five days' notice calling for nominations. 31. Mr. Armstrong.] Were you not at the Taueru on the night of the 23rd November—did you not lecture there ? Will you say you did not address the electors there ? —Possibly I did. 32. You were at the Taueru? —I will have to look up my diary and see. 33. Did you not go from the "Knoll" to the Taueru? —I really could not say. lam not sure of the day that I started, but I am certain I did not see any advertisement, because it was this way : it was the first time I had stood for Parliament, and 1 did not know anything about these nominations. With reference to this advertisement, I intended to look out when it appeared, but was out at the back, and did not see it. 34. You are not positive about anything ?—Not unless I look at my diary. Mr. Phillips : Do you want to show I saw that nomination advertisement ? Mr. Armstrong : I want to show that if you had looked yourself or made inquiries when the nominations appeared, you would have had time to have done so. Mr. Phillips : I relied upon the Act. 35. Mr. Armstrong .] Did you know anything about the clause before you came into Carterton, and it was pointed out to you ?—No ; I knew nothing about it. 36. Do you know anything about the postal arrangements in the Wairarapa ?—Yes, something. 37. When does the mail close for the Taueru, Whareama, Homewood, and Mat Point ?—I do not know. I know that you do not see any of the southern papers, the Observer, Standard, or any of those, in the Taueru. 38. What papers did you see at the Taueru? —I think a Wairarapa Daily Times was the one there. I was hunting for late papers to see the news, but did not see them. 39. Did you not see the Wairarapa Star at the Taueru ?—There were some old copies of the Star in the house. 40. They take the Star there, do they not ?—I believe so ; but I did not see the nominations. 41. Did you look for them ?—I looked for the papers to see if there was anything in the North Valley affecting the South Valley, but did not see it. 42. Did you know when the writs were issued? —I believe I did. 43. Before you left ?—I did not take much notice of when the writs were issued ; the only thing I relied upon was, when making my itinerary to go round the coast, I made sure of being back two days before the nominations closed. 44. How did you make that arrangement when you did not know when the writs were issued ? — I did not know when the nominations were closed. I think you are wrong about my passing through Carterton on that date. My one horse and trap could not go sixty miles in one day. Mr. Armstrong : But the distance is only thirty-two miles altogether. The Chairman: The whole distance from the " Knoll " to the Taueru is thirty-two miles. Mr. Phillips: I did not make that journey in one day. It is more than likely I stopped in Masterton on the Sunday night. 45. Mr. Armstrong.] This advertisement appeared in the Star on Saturday, 21st November, and you say you passed through Carterton and did not see it ?—I know I did not come to Carterton in one day, and I know I did not see the Star and the nominations. 46. I intend to establish that Mr. Phillips saw the advertisement, or, if he did not see it, that was his own neglect, not mine ?—lf so, Mr. Armstrong will establish an absurdity. He had no business to close the nominations before the proper time. I did not see the advertisement calling the nominations. 47. I asked you if you knew when the mails closed on the coast? —At 5 o'clock on a Friday, the day that you say the nominations ought to close. 48. Can you tell me when the mail goes to Pahau and Pirinoa?—No. 49. Then you were out at the Wharau. How often does the mail go out there? I tell you it goes out on Saturday? —I do not know. 50. You said in your evidence you saw me at 10.30 on Thursday morning, the 26th November? —Yes, I saw you on the morning of the 26th November. 51. What did you say to me ? —I said that I had been out at the back, and here is my nomination. 52. Did you offer me a nomination?— Yes. 53. You are positive you offered me a nomination-paper then?—lt was 10.30 when I saw you, and I said that I had come in to give in my nomination. Then it was I told you that I had been out at the back. You said that I could have seen the newspapers. I told you that I had not seen them. I said that the rule of closing-time was seven days before the date of the election. I then said, "Do you refuse to accept my nomination? " You said " Yes." I then said, " I will post it to you." 54. Were these the only remarks you made? —No, there were certain other remarks, which I have given.

I.—2a

10

55. Tell us what the other remarks were ?—I will as well as my memory serves me, and the notes that I took at the time of the conversation. I said, " You will not get Mr. Hornsby returned, as he will not be returned." That does not appear to be in my first evidence. It was currently reported that I was to be shut out, and that Mr. Armstrong intended running Mr. Hornsby. That is what I was told when I came back. 56. Did you believe it ?—I believe all your actions went to show you were a strong partisan. 57. Do you believe everything you are told outside?— No. 58. Anything you were told concerning me, whether it was right or wrong?—-I do not believe everything I hear of every man. I judge a man by his own actions. I judged you directly you refused my nomination, because I knew it was so wrong. 59. When did you take the notes of what occurred —did you take them at the time that they occurred ? —I took them immediately after. 60. That was an hour and a half after it took place ?—Yes. I was very careful to take the notes at the time, so that I should not forget them. 61. Do you know it is a fact that you took no notes during that interview with Baylis and yourself ? —I took the notes an hour and a half after the interview. 62. If I get a letter from Messrs. Bayliss and Driscoll to show that what you say is not correct, will you believe it ? —I would not say that. 63. You say I refused your nomination at 10.30? —Yes. 64. Are you not aware, Mr. Phillips, that you had not a nomination with you when you saw me at 10.30? —You said you would refuse it. I tendered you my nomination at 11.15. 65. No. Where did you see me at 11.30 that day ?—All I remember is that I saw you at Mr. Fairbrother's store. 66. Did you not meet me at the corner going along to the Bank of New Zealand, when you said you had a cheque which you were going to get cashed?—lt was 11.15. The distance between Mr. Fairbrother's office and the Bank of New Zealand is just a diagonal across the road in place of a straight line, so that it is within a few yards of where I saw you. 67. Will you relate what took place at Mr. Fairbrother's? —I have given to the best of my recollection the circumstances that took place already in my evidence. 68. Did you ask Mr. Fairbrother to come to me and try to persuade me to extend the time ?— Yes, I said so in my evidence. I will repeat it. 69. You said to Mr. Fairbrother, "Do you think it will be any use tendering my nomination to him again ? " —I think it is almost the same. I saw Mr. Fairbrother, who said, " Mr. Armstrong is inside " ; and I said, "Do you think he will take my nomination-paper again ? " He said, " Well, you can go in and ask him." I believe, on Friday, the 27th, I went to see Mr. Fairbrother at his office at 11 o'clock. Mr. Armstrong: I went up the road and into Fairbrother's to get a copy of the Act, to explain the thing to Driscoll. Afterwards I went down to the office at the Court, and Mr. Phillips sent Fairbrother to know if he could persuade me to accept his nomination-paper. Mr. Phillips : Ido not remember sending Mr. Fairbrother to Mr. Armstrong. I will say what did occur. I believe Mr. Fairbrother and Mr. Atcheson begged Mr. Armstrong to take my nomina-tion-paper, and he would not do it. I spoke to Mr. Fairbrother, as my evidence shows, namely : "Do you think it would be any good my offering my nomination-paper again? " Mr. Fairbrother may have gone and seen Mr. Armstrong, but as true as I sit here I know nothing of Mr. Fairbrother going down to the Courthouse to see Mr. Armstrong. 70. Mr. Armstrong.] Did I go back with Mr. Fairbrother, and you made the statement that I had the power to extend your nomination ?—We three were together at the time. Mr. Armstrong : You said I had power to extend the time. I said, " Sit down, and point me out where I have power to extend the time, and I will do it." Mr. Phillips : Possibly there was something like that said, and I believe I looked through the Act, and I did not see any clause which would apply in the Act at that time. But I stated that " it was a general thing for race-meetings to extend the time of their nomination, and you can extend the time now." 71. Mr. Armstrong.] Did you say at your last meeting that Mr. Hornsby told you that I had canvassed for subscriptions for his election after I was appointed Eeturning Officer ? —I did not say anything of the kind. 72. In your travels through the district you said that I had been canvassing on behalf of Mr. Hornsby ?—Where did I say that ? 73. You said it through the district, did you not ?—I said at Carterton you were acting as agent for Mr. Hornsby. 74. In what way did I act as agent for Mr. Hornsby ?—That will be answered by one of the witnesses, if the Committee allows me to bring him. It was a witness who regarded Mr. Armstrong as Mr. Hornsby's agent. I have a letter, and I will produce it, but I have not the writer's permission to do so at the moment. If the Committee will allow me I will summon the witness. 75. Have you made statements through the district that I was canvassing for Mr. Hornsby ?— I only know at Martinborough they said you were canvassing for Mr. Hornsby. It was also said that Mr. Hornsby could not go about any portion of the place without your attending him. 76. Did you not make certain statements through the district about this matter ?—I did not. 77. Did you not receive a letter from Mr. Acheson ? The Chairman.] What Mr. Acheson ?—Mr. Acheson, my solicitor. I believe Mr. Armstrong threatened me with two or three Supreme Court .actions, and he has threatened other people, but has not brought any. 78. Mr. Armstrong.] Who are they ? 78a. The Chairman.] Did you write instructing your solicitor to take action against Mr. Phillips, Mr. Armstrong ? Have you any documents in connection with same ?—-No.

I.—2a

11

Mr. Field : You say that Mr. Phillips made a sort of an apology, Mr. Armstrong ? Mr. Armstrong : A kind of an apology in a letter written to the Wairarapa Observer on Saturday, sth December. Mr. Phillips : The election took place on the 4th December, and Mr. Armstrong says I went through the district stating that he was canvassing for Mr. Hornsby. Mr. Armstrong : Here is the letter [Exhibit No. 11]. The Chairman: That letter you put in as evidence in support of your contention that Mr. Coleman Phillips apologized, Mr. Armstrong?— Yes. Mr. Phillips : In reply, I would say that I wrote that letter on the 3rd December, the day before the election, feeling, of course, very sore to find that I had been shut out of the election, after devoting six or eight months to it. And if I wrote strongly, well, it was as much in the public interest as personal interest. I did not go through the district stating that he (Mr. Armstrong) had been canvassing for Mr. Hornsby. I said to Mr. Armstrong, " You have been acting as agent for Mr. Hornsby." Mr. Armstrong said, " I have not been acting as agent for Mr. Hornsby, and if you do not withdraw those words I will sue you." Well, when I wrote the letter I said, " Mr. Armstrong denies having acted as agent, and I accept his denial." But will this witness accept his denial who writes and tells me he did act as agent ? 79. Mr. Armstrong.'] You say you had been eight months conducting your election?— Yes. 80. When did you first go through the district ?—-I think my first tour was in March. 81. Did you state then that you were going to be a candidate?— Yes. 82. Did you state in your advertisement that you were a candidate ?—Yes ; I made a tour of the district giving political addresses, and led the people to understand that I intended offering myself as a candidate. lam not quite sure, but will bring my diary. 83. Did you mention about your going to become a candidate when you went through the district in the latter part of April and the beginning of May ?—I believe I did. 84. I have your published notice here [Exhibit No. 12] ?—That was not a candidate's announcement, only a preliminary notice. Mr. Armstrong : Mr. Phillips says he went through the district canvassing, which he never did. 85. Mr. Armstrong.] Did any one tell you that I was to be a candidate for the Wairarapa election at the last general election ?—lt was a general topic. Mr. Phillips : Do you wish an extract from the Wairarapa Weekly Times of the 26th November, with reference to four candidates being mentioned, &c, read? 86. Mr. Armstrong."] My name was never mentioned as a candidate ?—lt was generally mentioned in Greytown that you were to be a candidate. 87. You put in a letter to me on the Ist December ?—Yes. 88. How many times did you send that nomination in to me ?—Three times. 89. Did you think it was necessary, after I refused it, to continually send it time after time?— I hoped that you would have amended your actions. 90. Did you not know that it would have been utterly impossible to take your nomination on the 30th November ?— No, I took the precaution of sending you my nomination every time I could. Mr. Phillips :• I will explain. I devoted six months' time to cultivate an opinion in the district—it was an independent opinion. It was not against Mr. Seddon or Captain Russell, but a fairly independent opinion. Having devoted six months' time to that, it was very .rough upon me to be thrown out at the last moment by Mr. Armstrong. I sent in my nomination-paper on Thursday the 26th twice, and again, because I was telegraphing to the Colonial Secretary to interfere, and to postpone the whole election, if possible. You can understand the feeling of a candidate who thought he had a very good show, upon being thrown out. 91. Mr. Armstrong.] Did you write to the papers and ask the electors to form Committees on your behalf at the election ?—lt was this way : The election came off, and there was a good deal of talk of upsetting it. Mr. Armstrong and his friend proceeded to upset it. Then it came to upsetting Mr. Buchanan's election purely on personal grounds. I was not prepared to go to all the expense myself of upsetting this election, and as these other electors were doing it, and having been at a great deal of expense, I said to myself, " I will let them go on and do what they like. , '' If the electors wished the petition upset, and would form Committees voluntarily, they could do so, and I would join in with them. I was not prepared to take Mr. Armstrong's action—that is, the action against Mr. Buchanan. 92. What proof have you that Mr. Armstrong had anything to do with the petition matter?— Do you mean the Grantham matter ? It was reported your conduct was most irregular, and that you had sworn falsely. 93. You are departing from the question that I asked you. 1 asked you, was it not a fact that you wrote to the papers and asked the electors to form Committees. How many responded to you ? —A good many spoke to me about it, and asked me what was going to be done. 94. How many have offered to come along and do it?— There was a very warm feeling about it. You were acting with your Committee, and I allowed the public to do what it wanted. Mr. Grantham had, I think, better be examined. Was it not some of your people who were interested in this election petition ? Mr. Armstrong : The petition was lodged by Grantham, Mr. Phillips : When did you make a false affidavit about the matter ? Mr. Armstrong : I made no affidavit at all. Mr. Phillips : Mr. Armstrong admitted before the Supreme Court that he did make a false affidavit. Sir Eobert Stout asked him whether he had altered the date from the 11th to the 12th, and he said that he had. Mr. Armstrong : No. 2—l. 2a.

I.— 2a

12

Mr. Phillips : Here is Mr. Armstrong's affidavit, reported in the Wairarapa Observer of the 9th February [Exhibit No. 13] . Mr. Armstrong : I will put in an advertisement sent by me on the 21st. What I say is the writ was received by me by the afternoon mail of the 20th November. I immediately got hold of the Electoral Act and read out the advertisement which is now produced [See Exhibit No. 2] . The Chairman (to Mr. Armstrong) : Did the Wairarapa advertisement appear on any other date but the 21st ?—lt appeared in the other papers. Statement by Mr. Adam Abmstkong. Mr. Armstrong : In looking at the Electoral Act, section 74 says, "Every Eeturning Officer, on the receipt of a writ, shall indorse thereon the date of its receipt, and shall forthwith give at least ten days' public notice of the day of polling in the form or to the effect set forth in the Eleventh Schedule hereto, and the said ten days shall be inclusive of both the first day on which the notice shall be published and that of the last day." Then I considered, and I found out that in order to reach my polling-booth and my Deputy Eeturning Officers I should have to close the nominations on the 25th, and that would give me to the 29th to enable me to send the necessary papers along to facilitate those people taking the poll. Erom section 75 I read that it did not say I was not to close it before, so long as I gave sufficient notice to enable candidates to allow themselves to be nominated, and I fixed my notice accordingly, and this is the Act. According to the Eleventh Schedule of the. Act of 1893, it is stated that the latest day for receiving nominations of candidates will be so-and-so, and the poll will then be taken. There is nothing in the Schedule mentioning the time of day for it. Taking the whole thing into consideration, 1 concluded that I had a right to fix the nominations, provided I gave proper time to enable me to have the election conducted properly. This is why I fixed that time. I may say that no interference, nor any prearrangement, nor any instructions had been forwarded to me by the Government, nor did I communicate with the Government on the matter. I simply got the writ, and acted on my own judgment. It is absolute nonsense for Mr. Phillips or any one to say that I acted under the thumb of the Government. I think it is said that I was appointed by corruption and bribery; and I challenge Mr. Phillips, Mr. Buchanan, or any one to come here and say they can find a fault that I made in the arrangements for the election, other than fixing the nominations on the 25th. I challenge either of them to bring one point of misconduct, partisanship, or irregularity in the conduct of the election. Mr. Buchanan said that I had asked a Deputy Eeturning Officer how he was going to vote. It was asked me in the Supreme Court, and I denied it then, and I deny it now, and I will explain the subject to you about this said Deputy Eeturning Officer. This Eeturning Officer was a surveyor, living at Greytown. He wrote to me for the position of Deputy Eeturning Officer at one of the booths. lam not quite certain now whether I wrote him. I think I wrote and told him I would give him an appointment. I had not seen or spoken to him. He came up to Carterton to see me, to make the usual declaration that Deputy Eeturning Officers have to make according to the Act. I was away, but he came a second day, and I met him just outside the Courthouse. I walked with him into the Courthouse, and I filled out the declaration for him while he was reading clause 46 of the Act. He made the declaration, and then he went out again. I never asked him how he was going to vote. There is one Deputy Eeturning Officer—F. Mn.fr —in Greytown. I will tell you what took place with him. He asked me to appoint him a Deputy Eeturning Officer. You will remember there were two Deputy Eeturning Officers. Muir asked me for the position of Deputy Eeturning Officer, and I promised it to him. Some time before the election he was running about on Buchanan's committee, and I understand that some one in Greytown told him that I would not appoint him a Deputy Eeturning Officer because he was canvassing for Mr. Buchanan, so I left word for him to see me, and I saw him, and he said he had been told that I would not appoint him because he was acting for Mr. Buchanan. I said, " Who told you —did I?" and he said, " No." I said, " Then, if I did not tell you, you should not believe it." I gave him an appointment. That was the only man who mentioned politics to me at all out of the whole of the Eeturning Officers. Mr. Buchanan said I had made arrangements with him to send some particular notice to Homewood about scrutineers. Mr. Buchanan said I had undertaken to deliver the message to Homewood. I said I had done nothing of the kind. I said at the last sitting that I held documents to prove that I could not have done so. I brought along Mr. Buchanan's letter of the 30th November, 1896; it was dated in Masterton, the Ist December, and the letter came to Carterton the same day, Tuesday. In that letter are given the names of certain scrutineers. [Exhibit No. 14.] On receipt of Mr. Buchanan's letter on the Ist December, I registered letters to the Deputy Eeturning Officers at the places mentioned. I knew at the time that they would not receive the notice until the election was over, but to show Mr. Buchanan I did all that I could to carry out his instructions, and see that his instructions were attended to, I wrote. 95. The Chairman.] Was there any telegraphic communication between the polling-booths and your office'?— No. There was telegraphic communication to Taueru. I did all I was called upon to do with reference to Mr. Buchanan's matter. I never arranged with Mr. Buchanan to go out to Homewood and arrange for his scrutineer with my Deputy. When Mr. Buchanan came to me on the 3rd, and knew that the letters could not reach their destination in time, he asked me to send out fresh notices. I said to Mr. Buchanan, "I am too busy; I cannot write these notices, but if you bring them to me written out I will sign them, and then you can risk the responsibility of delivering them." That was done. Then, on the 3rd, he sent me in the official notice of his scrutineers, and the number of his committee-rooms, &c. [Exhibit No. 15.] 96. Mr. Field.} Did you send out any special messengers ?—No. 97. Do you rely simply upon postal communication ?—Yes; I rely upon the post. I do not think the Government would thank me to send special messengers for the special benefit of candidates. In the evidence that Mr. Phillips has given with reference to his petition

13

I.—2a

there is no direct charge of anything that I did.during the election, or on the conduct of the election, with the exception of refusing his own nomination. Nor has Mr. Buchanan in any of his remarks said that there was any irregularity, or that the election was not properly conducted. Mr. Buchanan was good enough to make certain remarks about me, and say that certain protests have been sent down by people against me, which I am going to put in and let the Committee read, [Exhibit No. 16.] Regarding the evidence in the Supreme Court, which has been questioned, I shall put the evidence in, and the Evening Post, with my depositions, and the whole thing. [Exhibit No. 17.] I say that before I could hold a scrutiny of the votes, which I am called upon to hold, I had to get my ballot-boxes back again, and I could not hold that scrutiny until the Wednesday following. I could not get my ballot-boxes back in time. Some might get back on the Tuesday, and some on the Wednesday afternoon. But with the number of boxes and rolls that I had back, I was able to start the scrutiny on the Wednesday. During the scrutiny there were discovered several cases of dual voting, and they had to be inquired into. And they took until Thursday afternoon, when we were done with the scrutiny. Then I had to inquire from the Deputy Eeturning Officers where this supposed dual voting took place, and made inquiries as to whether they were correctly ticked off, pointing out the names of the persons and who they were that were supposed to have dual-voted. That took some time. On the Friday afternoon I was busy getting up these results, and Mr. Brown, the reporter of the Wairarapa Observer, came in while we were sitting at the table and said, " What about these advertisements for to-morrow " ? 1 said " Oh, we have got to open the Waingawa polling-booth papers ; there is dual voting there, and we have to see and pick out the vote and disallow it." That was done on Friday afternoon. Mr. Brown said, " I will write the advertisement for you." " Well," I said, "if it will benefit you in any way you can do it." He said, " I will copy the advertisement of three years previously." I said, " I would rather prefer Mr. Mothes's Petone notice." He sat down and altered it. "But." I said, "I cannot give you the correct figures until to-morrow." He came round on the Saturday morning and I gave him the correct figures. On the subject of the swearing business that Mr. Phillips talks about, they sent up an affidavit on the Tuesday. It was a month or six weeks afterwards when I said I had signed the advertisement, but subsequently, when I thought over it, I made an affidavit that it was on the 12th that I signed the advertisement. I found out afterwards that I had made an error in the affidavit, and when the advertisement was put into my hand I admitted that I had made an error. I will put in the evidence with regard to this. It was not until Sir Eobert Stout wa,s examining me, with six or seven more lawyers putting questions to him and backing him up. They tried to put mo in a corner, but they were unable to do it. I will put in a leading article out of the Wairarapa Leader of the 21st October. [Exhibit No. IB.] That is with reference to the general election, and touches upon the question of the licensing election. Hearing of Mr. Armstrong's statement adjourned.

Ekiday, 3bd Decembee, 1897. Mr. William Habding examined. 1. The Chairman.} Your name is William Harding?—Yes. 2. You are called by Mr. Armstrong to give evidence on the petition of Mr. Coleman Phillips ? —I believe so. 3. Mr. Armstrong.'] You met me on the 12th November at the Blairlogie Junction Hotel?— Yes. 4. You were coming from Tenui, and I was going through? —Yes. 5. You were in my company practically all the time that I was at the hotel, with the exception of the time that we were in bed ? —Yes. 6. Did you hear me say or do anything that would lead you to suppose that I was an agent for any candidate during the Wairarapa election ?—No, I did not. 7. You were present when I was present with Mr. Engel and young Liverton ?—Yes. 8. If Mr. Engel said that I was acting as an agent for Mr. Hornsby, would that be correct ? — You did nothing in my presence to lead me to think that. 9. The next morning we had breakfast together, and 1 left before you did ?—You left about the same time. I remember helping you to catch your horse, and I could not say whether you left just before me or just after. I think I remember passing you at the gate, and you spoke to me. Mr. Harding ; Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to make a statement? —Yes. Mr. Harding : This is the third time I have met Mr. Armstrong. I met him in Tenui about six months ago, and he told me that these charges would be brought against him ; and he asked me this one question that he has asked me to-day, whether he was canvassing. The greater part of that evening we spent at Blairlogie, on the 12th November ; that night we did not talk about politics much. The only politics that passed between him and Engel in my presence was some charge about prohibition. I understood Mr, Armstrong was a Prohibitionist. There was some discussion about the boundaries of the voting district that caused Engel to say that his name was on the roll of Palmerston, or the West Coast somewhere. Mr. Armstrong said it was not too late to get his name shifted to the Wairarapa. That is all I wish to say. Mr. Armstrong has not put any words into my mouth. 11. Mr. Field.] This is the third time you have met Mr. Armstrong? —Yes. 12. You were not engaged as Eeturning Officer, scrutineer, or anything of that kind?—No, not in the least. 13. Mr. Phillips.] You do not know whether Mr. Armstrong stayed another evening at that hotel on his way back from the coast ?—No. 14. Whatever Mr. Engel says might have taken place some other evening altogether?— Yes.

I.—2a.

14

15. Where do you live, Mr. Harding?—You can- always find me in Tenui. I have a farm about eight miles from Tenui. Mr. Aemstbong's Statement continued. Mr. Armstrong : Eeferring to this licensing election, I had nothing to do with bringing out any of those candidates. My duty is that of a Eeturning Officer, and several candidates mentioned that there were a number of persons to be nominated who were shareholders in a company which held a wholesale wine and spirit license, and that they were interested in the sale of liquor. I turned up the Licensing Act of 1893, where it defines who were eligible as candidates, and I saw that anybody having any interest in the sale of liquor was not qualified to be a Licensing Commissioner. Then I ascertained that these people were shareholders, and upon these grounds alone I refused their nominations. There was no political feeling in the matter at all. If there had been any feeling in the matter it cut both ways, as Mr. Grace was being run by the prohibition party ; the other, Mr. Deller, is of the publican party. It did not matter to me who they were, when I considered that they were disqualified as shareholders, and knew that they were shareholders. In my duty as Eeturning Officer I think it was my place to see whether they were qualified or not, and that was the only ground on which I refused their nominations. The matter was afterwards turned into a political machine, and a petition was lodged against the election on the ground that I wrongfully refused these nominations. A day was fixed for the petition. I wrote to the County Council, which was the contributing body paying the expenses, and asked them if they would find a solicitor to defend the action. I had no reply from that body, and the Government would not find a solicitor; therefore I simply said I had no money as Eeturning Officer to go and defend an action for them, and declined to defend it. Mr. Bell was brofight up from Wellington in favour of the petition, and he laid it down here that if there was a brewery company of six shareholders, five out of the six could be elected to the Licensing Committee, and that they were eligible according to the present licensing laws. lam not in a position to say whether that theory is right or wrong. There was no defence, and honourable members will know a solicitor will make the most of everything he says; and the Magistrate believed him—namely, that I had wilfully gone out of my way to refuse the nominations of those candidates. I say that I did not do anything of the kind. In February I wrote to the County Council as a contributing body, told them the election was to be held, and asked them what provision they were going to make with regard to paying the expenses, at the same time stating that, as I was not a Besident Magistrate and could not frank correspondence, it was probable the election would cost a little more. The matter came before the County Council in February, but I have never yet had a reply to any communication I have sent to that body on the matter. I saw the Chairman some time afterwards, and I asked him what was going to be done. He said that the accounts would be paid as usual. 16. The Chairman.] Have you a copy of the letter to the Chairman of the County Council?—l have not. I did nothing more; but when the election was over I handed the vouchers to the different deputies as they came along, and they were sent in to the County Treasurer, who refused to pay them. I then wrote to the Chairman, and his reply was that my letter had been referred to the Treasurer for explanation. I had no further reply from the Chairman, and did not see him for a week afterwards, when I saw and asked him about it. He said, if I sent in all the vouchers they would be considered and paid. I said, as it was late on Saturday afternoon I should send them in the first thing on Monday morning; which I did. Then, instead of being paid, those accounts were tabulated and. published in newspapers all over the colony, and comments made upon the charges. The thing went on for some considerable time, and I consulted Mr. Skerrett, in Wellington, and asked him if I could sue for the whole of the expenses. He said Yes, that I could. And on his advice the case was brought into the Supreme Court for the recovery of the expenses, and I will put in the judgment of the Supreme Court. [Chief Justice's judgment (Exhibit No. 19); also paragraph (Exhibit No. 20) that appeared in the Wairarajja Leader showing the difference between expenses incurred in 1897 and those incurred in 1894.] The difference in the cost was—the Stipendiary Magistrate's expenses in 1894 were £189 9s. 2d., whilst mine in 1897 were £150 3s. 6d., the Justice Department refusing to give me a room in the Courthouse. And yet the County Council say these expenses are unreasonable, and they assert that is a part of the reason for not paying them. That is all I have to say about the Licensing Committee. With reference to the general election, I will put in a letter of Mr. Coleman Phillips's. [Exhibit No. 21.] I have explained, as far as I can, the circumstances that led to my fixing the nomination day, and that I gave due publicity to the date. My private character has been assailed, and I shal' therefore put in a number of testimonials that I have received since. [Exhibit No. 22.] Ido not know that I have anything further to say, only Mr. Phillips introduced a matter about a private transaction that he and I had some fifteen years ago. I just want to explain about that. I was putting down a sawmill at a place called Woodside. I had bought a plant, and the boilers attached to it were useless. I had to get a new boiler made in Wellington, which cost me £255. I was short of money, and I went to Mr. Phillips, and asked him if he would accept a bill of mine for £60. Mr. Phillips accepted the bill. Unfortunately for both Mr. Phillips and myself, the boiler was a little longer than it ought to have been. And just alongside the paddock there is the railway-line and a railway-siding. Well, I was putting up a sawmill, and chere was traffic going to be brought to the Eailway Department; but, for some reason unexplained, the department waited until I got my boiler on the siding, when they immediately started to take it up. 17. Did this siding lead into your bush ?—Yes. I am not prepared to say why it was taken up, but it seemed very funny. I had then to go and get another siding put down in the same place, which cost £150 Is. Bd. Then I had to clear the other side to get it put down. Through this I got into difficulties, and people with whom I had dealings were grumbling, and I handed them over the mill to get paid. I left it, and they put in a manager; but things did not go satisfactorily, and then they sold to that manager. Things were very complicated. I considered I was badly

15

I.—2a

used over the matter, and I was going to bring a lawsuit, but they lodged a petition to have me made a bankrupt, which stopped me. The other bankruptcy was in the beginning of 1882. 18. I cannot see what this had to do with the £60 ?—Mr. Phillips introduced the matter that I had swindled him out of £60, and that I was twice a bankrupt. lam only explaining the matter. I might say, with reference to handing over the mill, it was his (Mr. Phillips's) fault. He was asked to renew the bill, but would not do it, and was going to sue me, and the other people who had dealings with me advised me what to do, and I acted upon their advice. 19. You became a bankrupt, then ? —They lodged a petition, and I was adjudicated upon that petition. Further, there was not a proof of debt put in on that bankruptcy—not a solitary proof of debt. I have also said that I was a bankrupt before. I backed a bill once for a man for £120, and that led me into a loss of £700. In 1874 and 1875 things were very good, but in 1878 and 1879 land-values went down, and I got in a corner and was compelled to file. Ido not want to say anything more about the matter. The only thing I will say now is to finish up about the general election. I conducted that election as fairly and as honestly as I could, without favour to one side or another. Mr. Phillips did not want to be nominated, but this action is characteristic of several other actions of his under similar circumstances. He will send a notice of motion to a County Council, and after he goes to the Council he will ask leave to withdraw it. Mr. Phillips mentioned that I attended public meetings, and that I was questioned on this point in the Court, and that I admitted I attended public meetings. What I said when the question was asked was, if I was in a town where a public meeting was being held, I attended it because I had nothing to do. I attended a public meeting of Mr. Phillips's, when he delivered a public address. I went there and heard what was said. There is nothing to prevent a person going and sitting there. The Chairman.] Mr. Phillips, do you wish to ask Mr. Armstrong any questions?— Yes. 20". Mr. Phillips.] In your evidence yesterday, Mr. Armstrong, you said that no instructions had been sent you by the Government whatever as to the conduct of the election?— What I meant by that was that I understood you asserted that the Government had instructed me to act corruptly. 21. Did the Government send you any instructions or not as to the conduct of the election?— The Government sent me .the Acts, and the further communication from the Government was that I was to, as far as I could, select proper and well-qualified Deputy Eeturning Officers, and I carried out those instructions to the letter. 22. All the instructions that you received were with reference to the Deputy Returning Officers and the other matters were left to yourself?— Certainly. Mr. Phillips : It was a sad thing for me for the conduct of the election to be left to Mr. Armstrong without any guidance from the Government. 23. Mr. Phillips.] You said, Mr. Armstrong, that "I challenged Mr. Phillips or Mr. Buchanan to say that there was a fault in the conduct of that election, except the mistake of refusing Mr. Phillips's nomination " ?—That is what I said. 24. " There was no fault whatever." Now, I am going to ask you a few questions upon that. Did you ask any of the electors not to vote for Mr. Buchanan ?—No. 25. Did you not accompany Mr. Hornsby about at Martinborough, like his shadow—that is to say, he could not move anywhere without you ? —No. 26. Did you and Mr. Stone not stand at the public door at Mr. Hornsby's meeting at Martinborough, and place men about the place to lead the applause?— No. 27. Did you invite Mr. Buick to come up?—l wrote to Mr. Buick when the 1896 session was on, asking him if, in the event of a requisition being presented, would he contest the Wairarapa electorate. Mr. Buick went and quoted and misconstrued that letter, and published a portion of it in the Marlborough paper, with the intention.. I believe, of assisting him in his campaign in the Wairau District; and I think it was a very ungentlemanly thing for Mr. Buick to publish a private letter, and give the name of the party who wrote it. 28. Did you form one of the party to invite Mr. Seddon to the district?— Yes. 29. Did you attend any of Mr. Seddon's meetings? —Certainly I did; but not at the election, I may state. Mr. O'Mcara : It would be best to state definitely when those invitations were accepted. 30. Mr. Phillips.] What month did Mr. Seddon go up to the Wairarapa to attend the meetings ? —I think it was on the sth November, the last day of the Wairarapa show, and on the 4th December the election was to be held. 31. Did you not attend a meeting of Mr. Hornsby's supporters to take steps to defray Mr. Hornsby's election expenses?— No. 32. Were you not warned by men of your own side at Greytown not to attend Committee meetings ?—No. 33. You also said yesterday, " Or to bring one solitary act of misconduct, partisanship, or irregularity." You said you challenge that ?—Yes, I challenge that. 34. Supposing the Chief Justice said that your conduct was very irregular, would you admit that ? —I do not know that the Chief Justice said anything of the kind. 35. The statement in the judgment is this : After enumerating the votes, his Honour the Chief Justice said, " The proceedings of the Returning Officer were exceedingly irregular"—that is, on the petition against Mr. Buchanan. This is an extract from the Evening Post, 9th .February, containing the judgment ?—That remark was over the scrutiny of the votes, and how it was done. I reckoned that the votes were to be scrutinised for the purpose of Mr. Buchanan, and it was done; and it was in reference to them that the Judge made that statement. 36. Mr. O'Meara.] On the sth November, 1896, you say, Mr. Seddon was invited to your district. Did you take any part in that invitation ?—Yes; I was one of the party who invited Mr. Seddon. 37. The Chairman.] What is the date of your appointment as Returning Officer?—l was gazetted some two or three days before the Ist December.

I.—2a,

16

38. Mr. O'Meara.] Did you know at the time when you acted with the party who sent the invitation to Mr. Seddon that you were likely to be appointed Eeturning Officer ?—I knew at the time that the Eeturning Officership was offered to Mr. McKerrow. 39. Mr. Phillips.} You said yesterday that you had nothing to do with the Grantham petition — that is, the petition got up to oust Mr. Buchanan ?—I said that I, as Eeturning Officer, received a petition, and forwarded it, with the bond received by me, to the Registrar of the Supreme Court. 40. Do you remember being examined on that election petition ?—Yes, and my evidence is in the papers I put in yesterday. 41. Do you remember stating this—this is a report of your own speech : " The sureties of bond which he had given in connection with the petition were lodged by Messrs. Fairbrother, his brother-in-law, and Aplin " ? —Yes. 42. "It was not a fact that he had talked particularly to the sureties about the petition "?— Yes. 43. " He accepted them as sureties without question, because he was convinced they were able to meet any demand which might happen to be made upon them "?—-That is so. Mr. Phillips : The petition was served on the 9th January. Mr. Fairbrother gave it to him (Mr. Armstrong). It was served at his own house, Mr. Fah'brother being his brother-in-law, whilst the witness of the bond was another brother-in-law; and yet Mr. Armstrong sat in that chair yesterday and said that none of his family had anything to do with the election. The Chairman: Mr. Phillips, we will allow you every latitude, but I do not think you ought to put a question and comment upon it. Mr. Armstrong gave evidence yesterday ; that evidence is available for the Committee, and it is for the Committee to put what construction they think proper on the evidence before it. 45. Mr. Phillips.] Is Mr. Fairbrother a brother-in-law of yours, Mr. Armstrong?—Yes-. 46. Was the witness to the surety of bond another brother-in-law?— Yes. 47. Will you now say that you had nothing whatever to do with the getting-up of that petition against Mr. Buchanan ?—The bond was handed to me duly signed, duly witnessed, and I took it and forwarded it with the petition to the Eegistrar of the Supreme Court. 48. I am asking you, Did you have anything to do with the getting-up of that petition or not ? —No. 49. Did you say, " On receipt of Mr. Buchanan's letters re scrutineers, I registered them on to the Deputy Eeturning Officers " ?—I did. 50. Do you remember also saying, " I knew that they would not receive those notices " ? —Yes. 51. And yet as Eeturning Officer, knowing that they would not receive those notices, you sent them by post?—lf I had not done that Mr. Buchanan, or some other people, would have said that I neglected my duty and did not do what I ought to have done. In order to be able to prove what I was in duty bound to do, I sent the notices and registered them. 52. You knew they would not get there in time?— Yes. 53. Does not your conduct bear this construction : that you did not wish Mr. Buchanan's scrutineers to be appointed? —Certainly not. 54. You also said that no telegrams could reach those distant polling-places ?—I said there was no telegraph-office further than the Blairlogie Junction. 55. Why could you not have sent a messenger round the coast with these notices and with anything you wished to say to all your Deputy Eeturning Officers ?—I had already instructed all my Deputy Eeturning Officers what to do. They had further instructions; they were to allow no scrutineers to sit unless I instructed them in the matter. 56. And yet you posted those notices knowing that they would not get there? —That was not my fault. It was the candidates' fault for not sending them in early. It was my duty to conduct the election. 57. Did you not say yesterday, " I do not think the Government would thank me to send a special messenger" ? —I said. I did not think the Government would be satisfied with my incurring expenditure for the interest of a candidate. .58. You hesitated to commit the country to the expense of sending round one messenger to the outer polling-places where your notices could not reach for fear of the Government objecting ? — Yes; not my notices, Mr. Buchanan's notices. 59. Did not you say the whole conduct of this election rested with yourself ?—Yes. 60. Then, how can you sit there and say you hesitated to send a messenger round after you had closed the polling-places to scrutineers ?—I said that I was not prepared to put the Government to expense. I said I would not incur the expense of sending a special messenger to send notices to Deputy Eeturning Officers about candidates' affairs. 61. Mr. Lewis.} When Mr. Buchanan handed you the notices, did you tell him it was too late? —He sent them by post on the Thursday, the date of the election, but sent me a further instalment of scrutineers. 62. Mr. o'Meara.] As Eeturning Officer, did you think the matter of returning the names of the various scrutineers was a matter that should be left entirely with the candidate himself ?—The clause of the Corrupt Practices Act says, "A candidate must send to the Eetarning Officer"; then " That no scrutineer will be allowed to sit so long before the poll." 63. Supposing I was to send in the name of a scrutineer, and that paper had to be despatched, say, a hundred miles, would you consider it your duty to send that at the expense of the country by special messenger ? —No, not for the candidate. 64. Mr. Phillips.] You remember the scrutiny of the ballot afterwards ?—Yes. 65. Was not your conduct held highly irregular on that occasion? —No. 66. With reference to the scrutiny of the ballot, there was one specially at Waingawa ?—Of course, candidates know there has to be a scrutiny of all the rolls by the Eeturamg Officer

17

I.—2a

or person appointed. I got a person to take a clean roll, and then I took all the rolls from the different polling-booths, and I read out to him. There were two scrutineers on behalf of Mr. Buchanan present. I read out the numbers exercised at such-and-such a polling-booth. He would put a number to the polling-booth opposite that vote. When all were gone through it was found out that numbers had voted at two polling-booths. Then we had to go and examine the papers to see how those votes were cast. The Act provides for this. 67. As to declaring the return with respect to Mr. J. Brown, you said Mr. Brown waited upon you on declaring the return and asked you in what form the advertisement should be put in. He said, Shall it be like Mr. Hutchinson's, and you said No, like the Hutt electorates?—l said I had seen one of Mothes' in the morning paper, and I thought I should like it to suit the Wairarapa. 68. If you remember, you said you neither signed nor wrote it ?—The assistant I had with me and myself were busy. There were a lot of numbers to get out—the correct numbers—and Mr. Brown, of the Observer, came inside the office on the Friday and asked about this advertisement. He said he wanted it " set up." I said you can alter the advertisement just mentioned to you if you like. He said " done," and altered it. I told him that we had to go through the papers that night. Mr. Buchanan's scrutineers had to be present, and it was probable that we would be able to give him the correct figures in the morning. Mr. Brown agreed to that. 69. The Chairman.] That was eight days after the election ?—Yes. 70. Mr. Phillips.] Was that eight days after the first election?— The advertisement appeared on the eighth day. 71. You never wrote nor signed it ?—No ; I instructed Mr. Brown to put my name to it, which he did. 72. Do you consider it right of a Eeturning Officer to tell any reporter coining into the room to go and write out one of the most important actions that you have to take—that is, the advertisement declaring the return ?—I saw nothing wrong in allowing Mr. Brown to correct the thing. I had to see it next morning and see that it was correct before it appeared in the paper. 73. Upon this depends your qualification. Do you think it right for a Eeturning Officer to allow any reporter to write out practically the declaration of the poll ?—My answer to that is, I allowed Mr. Brown to write it out, and I saw that it was in accordance with what I required. 74. Does not your affidavit in the Supreme Court say that you neither saw nor signed it?—lt was submitted to me the following morning, and I approved of the form in which it was made out. 75. You did not keep copies of your letters, even to the County Council, in reference to your expenses ?—I did not keep a copy of the letter asking what arrangement they were going to make concerning the payment of the licensing-expenses. 76. A matter of £150, and you kept no copy of it ? —I did not know what it was going to cost. 77. You stated this morning it was not only one case you had to reply to, but that there were three or four cases you were replying to ?—I made use of those words. 78. How does it come there are three or four cases to be replied to ?—Because Mr. Buchanan has introduced three or four cases. 79. With reference to this judgment of the Supreme Court, and that there is nothing in your conduct but what is straightforward and without partisanship, how does it come, then, you have so many cases to reply to ? —Because you have been looking round the district getting people to tell you certain things, and then coming down here and making statements utterly contrary to fact. 80. Do you not think on such an important matter as negativing your evidence, Mr. Armstrong, I had the right to quote your own evidence in the Supreme Court?—l say this about newspaper offices : The correct evidence is not given in the newspapers, and it just depends on the writer whether evidence is made to appear one way or the other. Mr. Phillips : I want to show the Committee that Mr. Armstrong is contradicting every statement he is making. The Chairman : That may be your view of the evidence ; but the evidence is given here for the Committee to appraise. Will you confine yourself to questions, Mr. Phillips? 81. Mr. Phillips.] You said your duty as Eeturning Officer, Mr. Armstrong, was to inquire whether any were shareholders in a company holding a wine and spirit license ?—I did not say so. 82. Was it not pointed out that you should have accepted the nomination, and if that nomination was illegal and informal that the candidate would forfeit his seat ? Was it not pointed out that it was not your duty to refuse the nomination?— Mr. Bell, for the petitioners, said that thai would have been a better course to have taken. 83. What I want to point out is the question of partisanship ? —You cannot point it out, Mr. Phillips. 84. Then you said, " There was no political feeling at all. If there had been any feeling, Mr. Grace was being run by the one side, and Mr. Deller by the other " ?—lt did not matter to me. I refused their nominations. 85. But you made use of those words? —Yes. 86. " The matter was afterwards turned into a political machine, and a petition was lodged " ? —Yes ; I said so. 87. Here is your own evidence on the licensing petition, and your account where this matter was carried out on political grounds ?—What matter ? 88. The whole matter of the licensing election ?—I never said anything of the kind. The Chairman : What are you referring to, Mr. Phillips ?—I am referring to an extract from a Wairarapa newspaper with reference to the Wairarapa petition. [See Exhibit No. 13.] Mr. Armstrong : With reference to that, I was answering questions put by Mr. Bell in regard to that petition. Mr. Bell asked me if I was a political opponent of Mr, Deller's. I said I was. 89. Mr. Phillips.) You said you wrote to the County Council to find you a solicitor, and the County Council has never taken any notice of your communication ?—I have never had any reply from the County Council. They have never said a word to me about these election expenses.

18

I.—2a

90. How many letters did you send the County Council?—l sent the Chairman of the County Council, I think, three letters. 91. And they have not replied to one? —I had a reply ; the Chairman wrote and said he had referred the matter to the County Treasurer. 92. You said that you were thought so well of in the district that; you led the Committee to suppose there was no public feeling against you as Eeturning Officer ?—I said that there are a certain few that will have a public feeling against me, but I asked Mr. Buchanan to name twelve men that expressed surprise at my appointment, and he did not do it. 93. Why did the County Council refuse to reply to your letters?— Because the County Council is ruled by a paid servant. 94. You said the Stipendiary Magistrate believed that you had wilfully gone out of your way to refuse the nomination ? —I do not think I said so. 95. You also said that you held the Stipendiary Magistrate's judgment was wrong ? —I did not say that I held the Stipendiary Magistrate's judgment was wrong. 96. Here is the extract. There was ho defence ? —The Stipendiary Magistrate believed Mr. Bell that I had wilfully gone out of my way. I say that I have not gone out of my way. 97. You deliberately now go against the verdict of the Stipendiary Magistrate on that particular case ?—I simply say I did not go out of my way. 98. That is to say, you take exception to his Worship's judgment ?—I have got an opinion. 99. Have the expenses of your officers been paid yet for this licensing election ?—-No ; who would pay them ? 100. That is to say, these men are all waiting for their money still?— Certainly. 101. You said, instead of being paid, these accounts were tabulated and published all over the colony ?—Yes. 102. You then proceeded to sue for these expenses, and was not the effect of the judgment that you had brought a wrong action ? —The effect of the judgment was that I was not the proper party to sue. 103. Mr. O'Meara. — Will you kindly tell me who are the members of the Wairarapa South County Council, Mr. Armstrong ?—W. C. Buchanan, Henry E. Bunny, William Booth, Henry Braithwaite, James Donald, Charles Elgar, Coleman Phillips, and John Martin. 104. Mr. Phillips.] Do you admit now that my nomination was within two days of the proper time ?—No ; I admit that my conduct was right. 105. Do you know what the average cost of a general election is to the colony? —I have no idea. 106. Do you think that if I was to summon Mr. Eagle and Mr. Kelly they would substantiate their letters ?—There was nothing in their letters. 107. With respect to this private matter in 1882, you are aware that I have had no communication with you between 1882 and the time of the election ; you know we have kept apart ?—You have spoken to me several times, although I have taken no notice of you. 108. Where was that: on the road ? —I have met you several times on the road. 109. In 1882 you apparently alleged that you were an injured innocent, and that the people had wronged you as.to the removal of the railway-siding?— Yes; that was an injury. 110. This is the first time that I have heard it. Have you not treated others the same way as you have treated me in obtaining money in that way? —I do not think so. 111. Did you not drive down to the Dry Biver two or three times and ask me to lend you £60? —Yes ; the transaction took place at the Dry Eiver. 112. Did I refuse or not ?—You had not got the money. Then I asked you to accept a bill for £60, and you did it. 113. I declined to lend you the money ; did I not say to you I cannot afford to lend you the £60? —You said you had not the money. Then I asked you to accept a bill of mine for £60, and you did it. 114. I said I could not lend you the money. Did you not drive down again and, with tears in your eyes, say to me that you would be ruined, and that your wife would be ruined, unless I backed this bill for you?— No. 115. Did you not say that the bill should be met within three months ? —I expected it would have been met but for the Government taking up the siding. 116. Have you not treated other persons the same way, with tears in your eyes?— No. 117. I had to take up that bill. Were you not bankrupt at the time you asked me for that £60?— No. 118. How soon were you bankrupt after ?—Some time. It was in the beginning of 1883. 119. Was it within nine months after my lending you that money ?—I cannot say ;it was done for the purpose of stopping my bringing an action against the Government for using a siding after I had paid for it. I had to find £150 and the material, and to clear the land on the other side to put down this siding. Why the thing was taken out of my hands was, I was suing the Government for £150 I had paid. In order to stop me doing that, a creditor of mine in Wellington, to whom I owed £80, lodged a petition, and I was adjudicated upon that petition. However, there was never a proof of debt put in. 120. Did you not say your bankruptcy was my fault for not renewing the bill ?—No. 121. The words I have down are these :" It was Mr. Phillips's fault. He was asked to renew the bill, but would not. He was going to sue me, but I became bankrupt " ?—I said the cause of my handing over the mill to the others was because of your not renewing. 122. Will you answer whether that was in six or nine months?—l cannot say. 123. Are you aware that under the present bankruptcy law if any person did what you did to me he would be liable to two years' imprisonment. That is to say, if you got £60 from me, with an £80 bill out in Wellington, and that you were practically bankrupt, that you would now be

19

I.—2a.

liable for two years' imprisonment?—l am aware of nothing of the kind. lam aware that if you could have taken criminal proceedings against me you would have done it. 124. Did I make a proof of debt then ?—No. 125. How can you say I would have taken criminal proceedings against you ?—I did not trouble about it. I paid the £60, and have never spoken to you since. Mr. O'Meara : Why did you not put in a proof of debt, Mr. Phillips ?—I did not think it was worth while. The Chairman :Do you desire to call any witnesses, Mr. Phillips ? —I should like five or six witnesses to be summoned to combat all Mr. Armstrong has been saying. The Chairman : Mr. Phillips, will you state the main points you wish to examine the six witnesses upon?— Yes. (1.) " That Mr. Armstrong did ask a certain elector not to vote for Mr. Buchanan, his words being that ' they could get a better man than that.' ' (2.) " That Mr. Armstrong did accompany Mr. Hornsby round Martinborough," as I have said. (3.) "That Mr. Armstrong did attend a meeting of Mr. Hornsby's supporters in order to collect funds to defray his expenses." (4.) "That Mr. Armstrong was appealed against to the Colonial Secretary by two of the electors that he should not be a Returning Officer of the Licensing Bench." 126. Mr. O'Meara.] Mr. Armstrong, do you consider that you carried out the Act in its entirety, and that you made no mistake in your duty in carrying it out ?—As far as my reading the Act led me, I gave notice to close the nominations on the Wednesday instead of the Friday. 127. Do you admit that?—My reading of the Act was that I could fix the nominations to suit the electorate. 128. That is the only error you are accused of?— Yes. 129. With reference to your sending the names of the scrutineers to the various Returning Officers, did you not think the Act gave you power to despatch messengers to the various Returning Officers?—No; I did not think so. 130. Supposing you did it, do you think your action would be justifiable. There is nothing to prevent you doing it ? —I might take the responsibility, but do not think the Audit Officer would certify to my employing special messengers. I would not assume the responsibility. 131. You did not apply to your superiors to ascertain whether you were to do it or not? —No.

Tuesday, 7th Decembee, 1897. 1. The Chairman.'] I understand, Mr. Phillips, you have brought a witness or witnesses to give evidence this morning?— Yes. But there are my telegrams that I should like the Committee to see before you call the witnesses. 2. Produce your telegrams, Mr. Phillips.—The first one is as follows : — To the Colonial Secretary, Wellington.—Adam Armstrong, Returning Officer, Wairarapa, refuses to accept my nomination to-day, on the ground that time for it expired yesterday, as advertised by him. I protest strongly against this unwarranted action, relying on section 75 " The Electoral Act, 1893," and section 15 " Electoral Act Amendment Act, 1896." Please instruct him to accept my nomination at once, and cable to me here.—Coleman Phillips, Carterton. The second telegram reads :— To the Colonial Secretary, Wellington.—ln further reference to my telegram of 26th, I have to request that His Excellency interferes under clause 168 of " The Electoral Act, 1893," in order to compel Returning Officer to accept my nomination Wairarapa Electorate. Please reply to Featherston.—Coleman Phillips. 3. I presume the witness you desired to call, Mr. Phillips, is Mr. Deller, Mayor of Carterton ? —Yes. The Chairman: That gentleman received a request on a printed form signed by the Clerk of the Committee, inviting him to be present. He (Mr. Deller) sent a note apologizing, and stating that he could not attend. It appears, according to the Standing Orders, there is a form of a different nature to that sent, and which should have been signed by me as Chairman of this Committee in the first place. I obtained this information on submitting the matter to Mr. Speaker. Accordingly Mr. Deller received a summons in the proper form, signed by me. A telegram from Mr. Phillips was received yesterday by the clerk, requesting that Mr. Deller should be excused from attendance. The telegram was not acknowledged by the clerk, so that Mr. Deller is here this morning. The clerk informs me that it was too late when the telegram was received by him last night to prevent Mr. Deller coming on, as he could not receive a reply in answer to Mr. Phillips's telegram. Mr. Phillips : I found out on Saturday that Mr. Deller and Mr. Armstrong are brothers-in-law, and I can understand Mr. Deller's hesitancy to attend a meeting of the Committee. 4. The Chairman.'] Mr. Phillips, Mr. Deller is one of the witnesses you originally named, and subsequently you suggested that Mr. Deller should be summoned, and that the country should defray the expense, in order that he should give evidence on your behalf ?—I did not know the family relation. The Committee have nothing to do with that. Mr. G. W. Dellee examined. 5. The Chairman.'] I understand you are here, Mr. Deller, to. give evidence on behalf of Mr. Coleman Phillips, in reference to his petition respecting certain irregularities alleged to have taken place with respect to the Wairarapa election ?—Yes, but before I proceed Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain my position. lam a brother-in-law of Mr. Armstrong's, and I would much rather not have been called upon to give evidence, owing to relations between us having been strained for some years. Some thirteen or fifteen years ago Mr. Armstrong filed unfortunately, and X was one of his creditors. We have never been friends since ; have not spoken to each other. 3—l. 2a.

20

I.—2a.

Privately, I have no feeling against Mr. Armstrong, but on public grounds I consider him quiet unsuitable to hold any public position. 6. The Chairman (to Mr. Phillips).] Do you desire to examine the witness?—l have to assert, Sir, that Mr. Deller should not be examined in consequence of the family relation existing between Mr. Deller and Mr. Armstrong, and I do not intend asking him any questions myself, although by my not doing so I may give away my whole case. The Chairman.'] Permit me to point out to you that Mr. Deller is summoned here by me, as Chairman of the Committee, absolutely and entirely at your request. 7. Mr. Phillips.'] Mr. Deller, do you consider that any partisanship was shown at the late election by the Eeturning Officer ? —Yes, Mr. Phillips, I undoubtedly do. 8. Mr. Armstrong.] May I be permitted to say a few words, Mr. Chairman?— Yes. 9. In what way did I show partisanship during the election, Mr. Deller?—lf you were to go from one end of the electorate to the other I guarantee nine out of every ten would tell you what I have said. 10. In what way within your knowledge did I show partisanship ? —I saw you continuously with Mr. Hornsby's committee; I saw you at the White Hart Hotel, sitting with Mr. Hornsbyand his committee, as close to Mr. Hornsby as I am to you now, when I was called in to receive an apology for the slight that was tendered me with reference to you and George Fairbrother conniving to prevent me taking the chair at Mr. Hornsby's meeting. 11. When was that?— That was the night of the date of Mr. Hornsby's meeting at Carterton. 12. Where else did you see me ?—I saw you continuously. 13. How could you see me continuously ? Was I continuously in Carterton?—Undoubtedly you were. 14. Was I not out through the country fixing up polling-booths?— And other matters. 15. What doing ?—Touting, for instance. 16. Mention who heard me touting. Did you hear me ?—I could not very well hear you. You were careful to say nothing when I was about. Mitchell heard you. Then there is your connection with the petition to upset the election. 17. What had I to do with that ?—You were in collusion with Kells with regard to the matter. 18. Did not Kells write a letter to the newspaper denying it ?—I do not know what Kells wrote, but I know what you did. 19. How do you know that I had anything to do with that ?—I say you had, and you know that you had. 20. Where does Kells live?—At Cross's Creek. 21. How do you know that I asked Kells to do this ?—There are lots of things I know, and you know that I know them. 22. How do you know it ?—I have answered, I do know it. If the Committee want the evidence all they have to do is to ask Kells himself and others. 23. You were Mr. Buchanan's principal agent, were you not?— No. 24. Did you not act for him ?—I always have been a strong supporter of Mr. Buchanan's, and feel quite proud of the fact. 25. You know how the feeling of the electorate was? —It was in favour of Mr. Buchanan. 26. You know how the feeling of the electorate was? —Yes. 27. If Mr. Phillips said here that he stood a good show of being elected, do you think that would be correct? —I would not like to say that that would be correct. 28. You would not say it was correct ?—No, undoubtedly not. 29. The Chairman.] Mr. Field, do you desire to ask the witness any questions ? —Yes. 30. Mr. Field.] You are Mayor of Carterton, Mr. Deller?—Yes. 31. Have you lived in Carterton for any period of time ?—For twenty years. 32. You know the district well ?—Yes. 33. If any reports were about you would be likely to hear them ?—Yes, I do not think anyone would hear them sooner. 34. What is your line of business ?—Butcher and cattle- and sheep-dealer. 35. You come a good deal in contact with the people. You heard it said generally that Mr. Armstrong was a partisan ?—He was recognised on the coast as Mr. Hornsby's agent, not as Eeturning Officer. 36. Mr. Armstrong .] I want the witness to give the names of those people who thought me acting as Mr. Hornsby's agent. I will produce a letter from the manager of the station at which I stopped one night. lam prepared to produce people to show that this statement is without foundation. I ask the witness to name those people who say I acted as Mr. Hornsby's agent ?— Their names are legion. If you go from one end of the electorate to the other, nine out of every ten people would cell you the same as I am telling you now. Mr. Armstrong : There is a statement " nine out of ten," yet I ask witness to name one individual and he will not. Mr. Field ; Oh, yes he has, he has named two. Mr. Phillips : I have named one, Mr. Engel. 37. The Chairman.] Do you desire to ask Mr. Deller any further questions, Mr. Armstrong?— The witness will not answer the question I have asked him. 38. Mr. Phillips, do you wish to ask the witness anything?—l only wish to say that Mr. Deller is one of the most straightforward men about the district. 39. Mr. Monk.] Was the impression extant round the district that Mr. Armstrong thwarted Mr. Phillips in placing himself legally before the electors —that is, thwarted him in his nominationpapers? —Yes, that is so ; prior to the thing becoming public I knew that Mr. Phillips's nomination was to be rejected.

21

I.—2a.

40. Did you hear it before the election ?—Yes; it was general talk that the Eeturning Officer would take good care that Mr. Phillips would not split up the votes. 41. The impression was that Mr. Armstrong thwarted Mr. Phillips in placing himself legally before the electors ?—That is so. I told Mr. Phillips that Mr. Armstrong was going to refuse his nomination, and he did so. Mr. Armstrong: The nomination was refused after the legal time for receiving nominations had elapsed. 42. Mr. Monk.] Mr. Deller, was the feeling at the time that Mr. Phillips's nomination should have been accepted, but through partisanship his nomination was rejected ?—That is so. 43. Mr. Lang.] You say you have mixed a good deal with the people, Mr. Deller, in the district. Was Mr. Armstrong's name mentioned as a probable candidate before the election ? —I heard it, but I never considered the thing seriously for one moment. 44. I suppose his political views are well known in the district ?—Yes; but he has been on both sides of the House. 45. lam speaking of the time just before this election. Was it known by the people which side of politics he was on ? —Yes, he was canvassing and electioneering the whole time. In fact, he did nothing else but canvass for his present side of politics. 46. The Chairman (to Mr, Phillips).] Do you wish to bring any further witnesses, Mr. Phillips ? —I should like to call five or six. The Chairman : You are at liberty to do so. 47. The Chairman.] Do you intend to bring any further witnesses, Mr. Armstrong?—l do not know until I hear what Mr. Phillips's witnesses say. Mr. Armstrong : I have a letter from the Chairman of the County Council, in answer to a statement that Mr. Phillips made the other day. It is signed H. B. Bunny. I will put it in. [Exhibit No. 23.] Mr. Phillips (to the Chairman) : Mr. Chairman, would the Committee have any objection to place me under oath with regard to my own evidence—that is, would they allow me to swear to the truth of my own evidence ?—I do not think it is necessary, Mr. Phillips. Mr. Phillips: I should like to be sworn as to the truth of my statement, and then I should like Mr. Armstrong to be sworn as to the truth of his also. Mr. W. Fraser : That will come in afterwards. Mr. Hugh Pollen examined. 48. The Chairman.] Mr. Pollen, do you desire to make a statement with regard to these alleged irregularities at the Wairarapa election ?—The only point of which I have any knowledge at all is the fact that Mr. Armstrong fixed the 25th for the date of receipt of the nominations. As to whether it was right or wrong is a legal question, upon which I cannot offer an opinion, of course. Eeturning Officers are in a sense judicial officers ; they interpret the law, and are responsible for their interpretations. I do not know that I can say any more. The facts are not disputed, I believe, as to his having fixed that particular day. 49. You are aware, Mr. Pollen, the contention is that Mr. Armstrong made a mistake in closing the nominations for election on Wednesday, the 25th, instead of Friday, the 27th ?—I understand that. 50. Can you furnish the names of any other Eeturning Officers who closed the nominations on or about the 25th, or before the 27th ? —I was looking through the advertisements of the different Eeturning Officers, and I find that some five or six of them fixed Thursday, the 26th, instead of Friday, the 27th, as the latest day for receiving nominations. 51. Do you recollect any particular districts ? —Ashley, Ellesmere, City of Dunedin, Caversham, Taieri, Waihemo, and Waikouaiti. 52. Have any complaints reached your department from the electoral districts you have just referred to complaining of irregularities on the part of the Eeturning Officers in fixing those days ? —None whatever. 53. Mr. Phillips.] No one fixed the 25th ?—I could not say that. As far as I know, I did not come across the 25th. 54. If the other Eeturning Officers had received a nomination on the 25th they would have accepted it. Any person presenting to any one of these Eeturning Officers a nomination on the 25th, they would have been bound to accept it ? —Yes ; they had fixed the 26th. 55. Although there had been some irregularities, no one had been so irregular as Mr. Armstrong ?—I should not like to say that without looking through all the advertisements. 56. The Chairman.] Have you got your papers with you, Mr. Pollen ?—Yes. 57. Mr. Fraser.] The 27th was the general day, was it not?— Yes. 58. That was arrived at by including the Sunday, was it not ?—Yes. 59. The 26th would be arrived at by excluding the Sunday, would it not?— Yes. 60. How could you arrive at the 25th ?—That I could not say. 61. It amounts to this : Clearly to your own mind it must appear that any person fixing the 25th was directly contravening the Act?—l should not like to say that. 62. What is your individual opinion ?—My individual opinion is that it would have been safer to keep them open till Friday. 63. If you had been a Eeturning Officer you might have imagined that the Act intended Sunday to be excluded, and therefore it was quite possible any Eeturning Officer not accustomed to the work might have imagined Sunday was not included, and therefore fixed upon the 26th?—Yes; that is possible. , 64. By the same process of reasoning, could he possibly fix upon the 25th unless he made a mistake in arithmetic ?— No. 65. Would it not be beyond the Act ?—I do not know about that,

I.—2a

22

66. What does the Act interpret. May it be nine days; do you ever hear that seven days might be construed into eight days ?—No. 67. Does it appear reasonable?—No ; it is a legal question. 68. Where does the legality come in ; does seven mean eight ?—No. 69. It is not a legal question. Is it a legal interpretation, or is it not, I should like to know ?— Personally, I say I think " not later " means up to the Friday. 70. If a person could fix upon Wednesday, might he not have fixed upon the Wednesday preceding that ?—That, of course, reduces the thing to an absurdity. The preceding Wednesday would be rather far back. The writs were not issued. 71. Say the preceding Monday ? 72. The Chairman.] As head of the department, and having the administration of the Electoral Acts of the colony, supposing that, instead of the words " not later than 5 o'clock on the aftei'noon of the seventh day," " until 5 o'clock on the afternoon of the seventh day " had been there, and Mr. Armstrong had fixed the 25th instead of the 27th, what view might you have taken of the question then?—l think, if the word "until" had been in it would have meant the nomination must have been received up till 5 o'clock on the Friday. 73. Mr. Phillips.} You are Under-Secretary, Mr. Pollen ?—Yes. 74. One of the highest permanent positions in the colony?— Yes. 75. Under which Act, practically, comes the conduct of this election, subject to the Governor's consent ?—The department always has conducted the election. 76. A man like Mr. Armstrong has been appointed a Returning Officer, and you think it right to send him out without instructions, and, when questions are referred to you, to say that you cannot give an opinion upon them ?—That has been the invariable rule. The Returning Officer is supposed to be responsible for the interpretation of the Act. 77. Supposing a man may be picked up out of the streets? —-They are supposed to be men of intelligence filling those positions. 78. Your views are not to take the views of the Government of the day. You understand that I sent you certain telegrams, and is it right that your view should take the views of the Government of the day, or should you settle the point, where there is a conflict of opinion, to all persons ?—The rule, as fixed by the Minister, is that the Returning Officers are not to receive legal advice. 79. There are certain questions referred to. the Government which must come through you ? —Do you mean as regards the Order in Council, Mr. Phillips ?—Yes. 80. There are these letters with respect to Mr. Armstrong: — Carterton, 9th March, 1897. —To the Colonial Secretary, Wellington.—Dear Sir, —Being the Mayor of the Borough of Carterton, and having received innumerable complaints, and general expressions of dissatisfaction of settlers of different political opinions, re the continuance of Mr. A. Armstrong holding the position of Returning Officer for this electoral district, I take it as a public duty to notify you with regard to the matter. I would respectfully ask you to look up the evidence given by him in the Supreme Court, Wellington, in connection with the late election petition against Mr. Buchanan, when I feel sure you will at once see that Mr. A. Armstrong is unqualified to fill so responsible a public position with any degree of fairness. He has also been for many years a most ardent and rabid Prohibitionist, and that alone would tend to show his inability to conduct so important an election as the Wairarapa licensing election without bias. —Yours faithfully, G. W. Deller, Mayor of Cavterton. Carterton, sth February, 1897. —To the Colonial Secretary, Wellington.—Dear Sir, —I respectfully beg to enter my emphatic protest against Mr. A. Armstrong being again appointed as Returning Officer for the licensing election, and I feel sure, had you made the most ordinary inquiries before he was appointed for the general election, he would not have received the appointment. lam not only speaking for myself, but for numbers who were simply aghast at his being appointed.—l am, &0., W. Eagle. Carterton, sth February, 1897. —To the Colonial Secretary, Wellington.—l, the undersigned, hereby protest against A. Armstrong being a Returning Officer at the forthcoming licensing election.—D. Kelly, Oarterton. There is also my first telegram, referred to above, which is put in. That is my telegram, and you have just admitted to one of the members of the Committee you do not think that the nominations should have been closed before Friday ? —I have no legal advice upon the matter.' 81. With reference to Mr. Eagle's and Mr. Kelly's letters, Mr. Pollen, I have implied that you had shown considerable bias in this matter, and bias on the Government side, and were asked to produce certain correspondence that had taken place with regard to this election, and you said there were none ?—I said I had no papers bearing upon the subject-matter of the petition. 82. Supposing I can show you two letters bearing on the matter of the petition, what would you say then ? These telegrams would bear upon the matter. Have you had any instructions to protect Mr. Armstrong ?—Not in the least. 83. There are these two letters dated Carterton, the 15th February, 1897, to the Colonial Secretary, which referred to my nomination being refused; why was this not a protest ?—When I received the petition and read it over, I looked up the papers. I had quite forgotten the letter referring to the licensing election. 84. Here is a protest against the licensing election on the ground that the people were aghast at what he had done at the general election ?—I had forgotten that letter. 85. It was barely a lapse of memory ?—I had quite forgotten that letter with reference to the licensing election. Mr. Phillips : If the permanent Under-Secretary, in receiving such telegrams as mine, cannot act differently to what Mr. Pollen acted, what protection is there for candidates ? 86. Mr. Phillips.'] With reference to the letter of Mr. D. Kelly, Carterton—viz., "I, the undersigned, hereby protest against Mr. A. Armstrong being a Returning Officer at the forthcoming licensing election." Did you also allow that to slip your memory ?—I understood those letters had been laid upon the table of the House. There was no concealment about the matter. The letters were published. They are public documents. I admit I ought to have laid them before the Committee officially. The letters were perfectly well known. 87. Then, there is the letter from the Mayor of Carterton, Mr. Deller, dated 9th March, 1895.

23

I.—2a

88. The Chairman.'] Do I understand you to say, Mr. Pollen, the letters just referred to were laid upon the table of the House ? —I believe so, Sir. 89. During the last short session of Parliament ? —That is my impression. 90. Mr. Phillips.] Have you a knowledge of what the expenses of a general election come to throughout the colony ?—You mean the actual conduct of the poll. I have not made it up this last time ; I can tell you approximately, say, between £7,000 and £8,000. 91. For each electorate ?—Eoughly speaking, about £5 for each polling-place. 92. If there were forty polling-places, that would be £200 for a country district, or £150 to £200 ? —lt would be about that, I suppose ; you must bear in mind that the expenses vary. 93. You are aware I could have upset this election ?—I am not aware of that. 94. The Chairman.] Did you receive any protests previous to the general election against the appointment of Mr. Armstrong as the Returning Officer? —I do not remember receiving any. 95. In what respect did the mode of conducting the general election, so far as you are concerned, differ from that of previous elections ?—I do not know that there was any special difference. 96. So far as your department is concerned, the election of 1896 was carried out as the general election, 1893'? —Yes ; allowing for the difference in the Act's amendments. 97. Mr. Armstrong .] Mr. Pollen, have you had any complaints about the general conduct of the election, and did you yourself have any complaints against the way I conducted that election ?— Speaking from memory, I have received no official complaints. I have heard that there were complaints, but can only say that they were hearsay. 98. Mr. Phillips.] No official complaints, Mr. Pollen ?—No. 99. What are those three letters just read previously ? —Those letters refer to the licensing election; they do bear indirectly on the matter, but I regard them as dealing with the licensing election rather than the general election. 100. Did they state general election ?—1 certainly regarded them with reference to his (Mr. Armstrong's) being allowed to conduct the licensing election. 101. Are not those letters official complaints, and he therefore should not have been appointed to conduct the general election. Did not you receive them as official complaints?— Hardly. 102. Mr. Phillips.] I ask that those letters be published. 103. Mr. Field.] When was Mr. Armstrong appointed Eeturning Officer, Mr. Pollen?— The appointments were made in November, I think ; October possibly. 104. At the time the appointment was made, did Mr. Armstrong get any instructions as to the conduct of the election apart from that contained in the statutes ?—A circular is forwarded to the Eeturning Officers, bearing upon certain points of the administration. 105. The instructions sent to him (Mr. Armstrong) were sent to all Eeturning Officers ? —Yes, a circular was sent. 106. Did any correspondence take place between you and Mr. Armstrong at the time, or immediately after the election, with reference to these complications that had arisen?—l called Mr. Armstrong's attention to the section of the Act, and he replied that he had read it, and was of opinion that he was right. 107. You left the responsibility with him ? —Yes, following the invariable practice. I simply thought it right to call his attention to the matter to see that he was sure of his ground. 108. Then, he did not fix the date of nomination by any instruction from you or your department ?—No. 109. Mr. Armstrong acted in a dual capacity—that is, he conducted the general election as well as the local option poll ?—Yes. 110. He subsequently conducted the licensing election?— That is ex officio. 111. Do you recollect the date of the licensing election ? —ln March. 112. Did you receive the letters of which copies are now produced before or afterwards ?—- Before the licensing election, in February, I think. 113. You did not think the matter contained in those letters was of sufficient importance to warrant you appointing somebody else in Mr. Armstrong's place ?—No, they were rather general. • 114. Have you any cause to complain of Mr. Armstrong's conduct on either of the elections?— The licensing election I know little about. As regards the general election, I have no cause of complaint. 115. Did any one else complain to you in writing?—No, except Mr. Phillips and the writers of the three letters which were referred to just now. 116. Did any one call upon you and complain verbally ? —Mr. Buchanan, I think, happened to be in the office one day about some other business, and made some remarks about it; but I did not consider this a complaint. He did not put it as a complaint. 117. So far as you are aware, Mr. Pollen, the nomination-day for the Wairarapa election was different from that fixed by any other Returning Officer of the colony ?—Yes, I think so, but would not like to say, without seeing all the returns. 118. You could furnish us with a return of the days fixed for the various Eeturning Officers ? —That would be a question of looking up the advertisements; they do not inform me officially, It is quite easy to obtain the information, and I will do so. 119. Did you bring under the notice of the Minister these complaints with reference to the appointment of Mr. Armstrong ?—Yes. 120. And Mr. Phillips's complaint ?—Yes. 121. What Minister? —Mr. Phillips's complaint would be brought under Mr Walker, he was the only Minister here at the time of the general election; the February one would be brought under Mr. Carroll's notice. 122. No notice was taken of this?— Not beyond they were acknowledged.

I.—2a

24

123. You said that you had no official knowledge of the complaints made with regard to the general election. Was this prior to the licensing election, or was it later on ? —I think it was soon after the general election. 124. It was prior to this election?— Yes, it would be prior. lam merely speaking from seeing some Wairarapa papers. 125. Did you refer to the Minister that there was newspaper comment and outside comment upon the conduct of the general election?—l might have mentioned the matter casually. 1 had nothing official before me. 126. Mr. Field.] Mr. Pollen, I suppose you could produce to this Committee any correspondence that has taken place between your department and anybody else bearing in any way upon the conduct of these two elections ?—Yes, if there is any. 127. The Chairman.] Are you in the habit of acting on personal complaints connected with any department of the public service that your department is administrating?— Hardly ever, in fact we would not act upon a personal verbal complaint. 128. In the event of any person making a verbal statement you would call upon that person to formulate his complaint in writing ?—That is the usual practice. 129. Have any complaints been formulated in writing, and reached your department, complaining of Mr. Armstrong?—l do not think there are any, except those we had just now from Mr. Phillips. 130. Mr. Fraser.] Is it not usual when an officer is complained of to take notice of it ? Were they (the complaints) forwarded to Mr. Armstrong? —Mr. Armstrong had asked for them. 131. They were so general that you did not consider them worth while to send to him?— They were too general. 132. Mr. Phillips.] You are aware then, Mr. Pollen, that complaints were made on the general election? —Those complaints referred to, yes. 133. You are also aware that the Licensing Committee has also been upset, and there is no Licensing Committee in the Wairarapa District at all now, that the Eesident Magistrate is acting?— Yes. 134. How does it come then, after all this, Mr. Armstrong was appointed Land Valuer? —That is not in my department. 135. Mr. Chairman.] Mr. Pollen, would you be good enough to furnish the Commmittee with a list of the Returning Officers and the days appointed by them to receive nominations?— Yes. [List put in, Exhibit No. 24.] Mr. Armstrong, further examined. 136. Mr. Fraser.] Mr. Armstrong, will you tell the Committee by what process of reasoning you fixed on the 25th? —I took the 74th clause where it says, "On receipt of the writ, the Returning Officer shall forthwith give at least ten days' public notice in the form as is set forth in the eleventh schedule." The writs were issued on 20th November, and I got mine the same night. I fixed the time to fit in with postal arrangements, and I gave fourteen days' notice. On Saturday, the advertisement stating that the nominations would close the following Wednesday appeared in the Wairarapa Observer and the Wairarapa Star of Saturday. It appeared in the Wairarapa Standard on Monday and in the Star every day till Wednesday and Observer on Monday. 137. Before you put your advertisement in, you must have figured out in conformity with a certain insertion. How could you arrive at the 25th?—It did not mean to say, "If circumstances did not permit you to close the poll before the seventh day," the section says, " Not later." 138. You thought you might have done it on the Monday ? —No; I thought I should have to give fair and reasonable notice. 139. According to your reading of the Act, the Tuesday would have suited as well. Do you think you had ample discretion under the Act to fix any day you pleased ?—I considered I was bound by the Act to fix as late a day as I could to suit my getting my election materials away by mail. 140. At the time when you were fixing the day, did you have the Act before you ? What did you taks into consideration when fixing that day ?—I took into consideration that I gave at least ten days' notice. 141. Ten days' notice of what ?—Of the poll. 142. How many days of nomination? —It doss not say. 143. You thought that that was not necessary?—l gave five days' notice of the nomination, and thought that was sufficient. 144. You thought that in the Act the words, " seven days " did not bind you to seven days ? —Decidedly; I did not think it bound me to the seven days. 145. Have you ever acted as Returning Officer before?— No. 146. You had no instructions?— Not beyond the Act. 147. It is a most extraordinary thing for you to go inside the seven days if you read the Act to mean you had scope to go as far as you liked ? —I did not read the Act -to mean I could go as far as I liked. 148. Mr. Field.] Did you close this nomination at the time you did on your own responsibility, and solely at your instance ? —Certainly. 149. You had no communication, and did not act on the suggestion of anyone else ?—No. 150. I should like you to say what was your reason for making an exception in the case of the Wairarapa, in closing the nominations on Wednesday instead of the Friday ?—lt was this way : I got the writs on Friday night; I had n6 other advertisements, I had seen none, and I just fixed the nominations to suit the convenience of myself and the district. 151. How long before the nominations closed did your advertisements appear fixing the date of the closing of the nominations?—On the Saturday previous. 152. That was Saturday to Wednesday?— Yes. 153. The Wairarapa is a large district, Mr, Armstrong?— Yes.

25

I.—2a.

154. Did you expect that newspapers could circulate over all that district, and at the same time give people sufficient time to forward their nominations to you, if necessary, between Saturday and Wednesday ?—Yes ; I thought so. Any candidate proposed or contemplated would have seen the advertisements. 155. Your advertisement of Saturday ? —Yes. 156. In time to place in your hands his nomination on the Wednesday ? —Yes. 157. It must be a very easily worked district?— The people away out in the furthest end of Pahaua would not have seen it, even if I had extended it till Friday, until after the nominations were closed. 158. Did you not think that that was the reason why you should have given the utmost limit you could ?—I did give the utmost limit I could. 159. The law permitted you to extend the time till the following Friday, and still you closed on the Wednesday ?—I, no doubt, would have closed it on the Friday afternoon if I had had time. 160. Do you wish this Committee to believe that any one in that district could have seen your advertisement of Saturday in time to place his nomination in your hands on the following Wednesday ?—I do not wish the Committee to believe everybody within the district could have seen it, even if I had not closed till Friday afternoon. 161. Do you not think they would have had a better chance ?—No. . 162. That is a most extraordinary statement to make, Mr. Armstrong ?—The mails go down to Pahaua, and you have to post letters in Carterton on Thursday to catch the mail leaving Martinborough at 9 o'clock on Saturday morning, the mail only going to Pahaua once a week. It also goes to Pirinoa and right round the Coast. 163. When did you draft the advertisement ? —The night I got the writ. 164. What night was that ?—Friday. 165. Could you not have notified Pahaua by mail at that time that your nominations closed on the following Wednesday or Friday ?—No ; even if I had wired, the mail would have gone before the telegram reached Martinborough. 166. Did not you think it was your duty, as far as possible, to have let all the district know, and sent messengers ?■—No ; I thought it was my duty, as far as possible, to give publicity to the fact. 167. The people in the district had a right to know when the nominatioijs closed, and it was your business to inform them of that fact and give them an opportunity to send in nominations if they desired ? —My duty is to give public notice. I am not authorised to go and send special messengers to every part of the district. 168. You did not think in exercising your discretion you should have done so?— No. 169. You have instanced Pahaua. Could the other portions of the district have known between Saturday and Wednesday ? —Yes, the greater part of the other portions. 170. Do you not think that the larger part could have known if you had extended the time till Friday ?—No. 171. How many polling-booths had you ? —Twenty-one or twenty-two. 172. How long was it before you got the last return in after the close of the poll ?—About twenty minutes past 11 on that night, I think. 173. You got the last one in at twenty minutes past 11 ? —Yes. 174. Do you mean, to tell us you could get your returns back in a few hours, and it was a matter of weeks sending out your notices ? —There were special arrangements made for getting in the poll. All the telegraph-offices were open throughout the district. For instance, there is a polling-booth at Homewood, and another down at Flat Point, and there is a road going one way from each to the Wharau, about twenty miles from Gladstone. There is a telegraph-office at Gladstone. I instructed a man at Wharau to wait until those two from Homewood and Flat Point came in, and then he had his fresh horse to go on to Gladstone and wire me the result of the poll. The same was done at Pahaua, Waipawa, and Pirinoa. These places are all about twenty miles from Martinborough, where the telegraph-office is. One man came on his bicycle, and the other rode by horse. Further up the coast there was a poll at a place called Whareama, about seventeen miles from Blairlogie Junction, and the P<,eturning Officer came as quickly as he could to Blairlogie Junction, and wired the result to me. 175. The offices were open all night on that occasion ; during the other times only on office hours ?—Yes. 176. I suppose you made use of them for sending instructions, and so on?—lf it was necessary. I made use of them as far as I possibly could. If I could send a letter by post I did it. If not, I wired instructions. 177. If it was a question of a man getting a wire iv time and a letter not in time, did you send the letter or the wire ?—I would have sent the wire. 178. You have said during your evidence that it was necessary for you to close the nominations on the d&y you did in order to enable you to prepare and distribute your voting-papers to the various polling-booths ? —Yes. 179. It took you eight or nine days to distribute the papers, and you got the returns back in two or three hours ?—You forget that I had the ballot-papers to get printed. 180. That is not a very large undertaking? —It is more in my district than a large place. I wanted some of these at least by Friday afternoon, so that I could send away by post to the outlying places. 181. You sent them all by post; none by messengers in the ease of necessity?—l sent to the outlying places by post; I did not send special messengers. 182. Have you any idea as to what the cost of the general election was. You must have worked it very economically if you availed yourself of post entirely and did not send any special messages? —The only special messages I paid for was the amount of £1 10s. for boys going to polling-booths and bringing in the results on bicycles.

1.-2 A

26

183. How long did it take you to get all your ballot-boxes back ?—Some did not come back till Wednesday. 184. Did they come back by post ?—Yes. Some of them were carried as far as Martinborough. They caught the post coming from there then, and that is why I could not start the scrutiny earlier, because we did not get the rolls back. I got some on Tuesday and some on Wednesday. 185. Do you consider this the customary method of sending back ballot-boxes. Do you not think more expedition in the returns should have been exercised ?—As far as the returns were concerned, I reckoned there was expedition used. 186. That is to say, it took from Friday night to the following Wednesday to get them back ? —I got the voting-papers the next morning. The man just simply wired the numbers, then brought the voting-papers along on Saturday morning. 187. With reference to the licensing election, you said you refused the nominations of Messrs. Grace and some one else because they owned shares in a Farmers' Co-operative Association?— Yes. 188. You also said Mr. Grace was the Prohibitionist candidate ?—I asked if he was not going to be run as a Prohibitionist. He admitted that he was. The prohibition people were running him. 189. Mr. Grace says he was not a Prohibitionist, and that he was not a Prohibitionist candidate ? —He would have been run by the Prohibitionists. 190. You are aware that there was an election petition as the result of this general election? Y eg 191. Had you anything whatever to do with forwarding or promoting that petition ?—No. 192. Had you anything to do with instituting that petition?—No; if anybody asked me with regard to information I might have given them it. 193. You did nothing beyond giving information ? —No. 194. Mr. Phillips put in a letter purported to be written by you, Mr. Armstrong, to himself —namely, " Carterton, Ist December, 1896. —Mr. C. Phillips, The Knoll, Featherston. —Dear Sir, — Your papers are herewith returned by registered letter. I presume you are aware that there is a subject or two in the Wairarapa fit for the lunatic asylum.—Yours, &c, Adam Armstrong." Did you write that letter, Mr. Armstrong ?—Yes. 195. Do you think a letter of that kind is consistent with a man holding the position of a Eeturning Officer?— That letter was written on receipt of a letter from Mr. Phillips sending his nomination for the third time, with pains and penalties for my refusing his nomination-paper. If I refused his nomination-paper once, was not that sufficient without his further worrying me? 196. You think you were justified in writing in that strain?— Under the circumstances, I think I was. 197. Was it not inconsistent with your position as Eeturning Officer. You let you feelings get the better of you on that occasion ?—Probably. 198. You said the election expenses had not been paid—that is to say, the licensing election expenses had not been paid by the County Council ? —Yes. 199. Have you any remedy against the County Council ?—The Chief Justice says that I am not the proper person to sue. It appears that the Licensing Act is not explicit enough on that point. 200. Do you mean, if you carried out the Act properly that that is so ? —The Chief Justice's verdict is put in, and says so. 201. If the conduct of the election was carried out all right, you would have had no remedy? —No. 202. Mr. Lewis.] You closed the nominations on Wednesday because you said you must have the ballot-papers printed on Friday, in time to send away by post?— Yes. 203. What time did the post close?—l had to post some before 5 o'clock on Friday afternoon. 204. Was it necessary to close the nominations on Wednesday in order to have these papers right by 5 r'jlock on Friday ?—Yes. 205. For what reason does it take two days in the Wairarapa to print the papers ?—There were five thousand to be printed. I gave the printer the ballot-papers for each booth, and he was to send them along. 206. He was not required to print five thousand in time to send away by Friday's mail?— No. 207. By closing the nominations on Friday you would have had ample time ?—My opinion at the time I closed the nominations was that it would take me that time to fix up my arrangements and have the election conducted properly. 208. The election took place on the Friday ?—Yes. 209. You told Mr. Field the latest of the boxes came back on the Wednesday, so that it took two days longer to go to the booth than when it came back ?—You have to arrange when the mail goes. 210. How far away was the furthest booth ?—The furthest booth was at Flat Point, but the most difficult was at Pahaua. A mail leaves for there at 9 o'clock on Saturday mornings. 211. In order to have the papers ready, you would have to have them printed on Friday night? —Yes. The Act did not compel me to wait for the seven days. 212. I gather you only had a few papers to get away on Friday afternoon, and, if you closed on Thursday, it appears to me that you could have done that. 213. Mr. Fraser.] With reference to sending boxes out, you could have sent the boxes out a fortnight before the date of the nominations ?—You have ballot-papers, and electoral rolls, and all that to send out. 214. They are not so cumbersome as a box ? —I did not do that. 215. Were there any ballot-papers printed at all by your instructions with Mr. Phillips's name on them ? —No.

27

I.—2a

216. You only had one set of ballot-papers printed ?—The contract for ballot-papers stipulated the local-option papers were to be printed as well. 217. Did the printer ever print ballot-papers with Mr. Phillips's name on as one of the candidates ?—He never did so with my instructions. 218. You never saw any ?—No. 219. Are you sure, Mr. Armstrong?— Yes. You can produce the printer, and find out. 220. You knew Mr. Phillips was a candidate for this electorate before you fixed the date of nomination?— Certainly ; I did my best to get nomination-papers, and if I had got them I would have sent one to Mr. Phillips. 221. Did you know where Mr. Phillips was between the Friday you received the writ and the Wednesday you fixed for the nomination-day ?—I was told he passed through Carterton on the Monday that the advertisement appeared in the Standard. He spoke that night at the Taueru, where he would see the Wairarapa Star, in which the advertisement was. The Star would come out on Saturday, and reach there, and he would see it. 222. Do you know now that you made an error, that you may have illegally closed the nomination of candidates on the 25th?—No; I do not know I closed it contrary to the Act. 223. Do you still think that you complied with the Act ? —Yes. 224. The Chairman.] Where was the principal polling-booth?—At Carterton. 225. How far is Taueru from Carterton? —Assuming there are nine miles from Carterton to Masterton, Taueru is only nine miles past. 226. I understood you to say that the mail to some of these polling-booths, at the greatest distance from the central polling-booth, closed on Thursday night, and left early on the following morning ?—Yes ; Pahaua, Waipawa, and Pirinoa. 227. It would be necessary, then, for you to make up a parcel of voting-papers on the Thursday night to post, so that those papers might reach the out polling-booths in time ?—Yes. 228. Hence, you closed the nomination on the Wednesday, so as to give you time to have the papers printed to post on the following Thursday evening ?—That is so. 229. How many miles was the most distant polling-booth from the central polling-booth ?—I dare say forty to sixty miles according to road. Pahaua or Pirinoa would be as far away as Plat Point or Homewood. I take it that Homewood would be about fifty-five miles from Carterton, but you do not go in a direct line, you go round Masterton, Taueru, Blairlogie, and Whareama. 230. About how many miles would that be ?—lt is nineteen to the Taueru, seven from there to Blairlogie Junction, and I think seventeen from there to Whareama, and then they reckon it about thirty to Homewood that way. 231. A total of about seventy-three miles?— Yes. There is a short cut to come in Gladstone way, but the mail does not run that way. 232. What is the shortest distance to reach the most distant polling-booth from the central polling-booth, so that if you employed persons to deliver nomination-papers they might be able to do so?—lf I had sent a special messenger I could have done them in a day's riding. 233. How long elapsed from the day of the general election before the last batch of ballotboxes, &c, reached you from the most distant polling-booth?— The poll was on the Friday, and on the following Wednesday afternoon I got them. 234. I would like to be quite sure on this point. It was necessary, then, for you to take advantage of the mail to post the ballot-papers not later than Thursday night, the 26th November? —That is so. 235. Mr. Phillips.] What have you been pointing at, Mr. Armstrong?— This is an Electoral Act. 236. Is not that the Act under which you conducted the election ? —Yes. 237. Is it not a fact that the whole of what you have been doing was under this Act, and that you did not know anything about the 1896 Act at all ?—I had the 1896 Act with me. 238. Is it not generally known by your own friends that, after you had fixed your nommationday, Mr. Atcheson requested you to look at the 1896 Act, and to send for me to get my nominationpaper?—No. 239. Did you know of that 1896 Act ?—Yes. 240. Here is an advertisement re notice of polling-day in the Observer of the 21st November. [See Exhibit No. 2.] 241. Did you have that paper or not?— Yes. 242. You have sat here and told the Committee that you knew of the 1896 Act, when it was generally known through Carterton that you did not ?—-I am not responsible for what is generally known. 243. Why did you not say, then, that every candidate desirous of being nominated must send in a form in accordance with section 75 of the 1893 Act, and the other section of the 1896 Act. Why did you not do so ?—I did not think it was necessary. 244. Do you realise that is proof positive that you knew nothing of the 1896 Act ?—I realise nothing of the kind. 245. In realising this, why did you answer Mr. Fraser all the questions that you did, knowing the misery you had made. Why did you not tell the Committee ?—I answered the questions put to me. The 1896 Act says " not later," and the 1893 Act says "at least seven days." 246. You said you were told I passed through Carterton on the Monday ?—Yes. 247. I told you I passed through on the Sunday, and did not see anything of the papers?— When I asked you at the Taueru you said you had quite forgotten it. Mr. Phillips: I must apologize for having forgotten to bring my diary in which the matter is noted. 248. Mr. Phillips.] When you knew that I was out on the Monday, had gone to the back, why did you not say, " I will extend the nomination-day to receive Mr. Phillips's nomination " ?— I will tell you where I was on the Sunday; I was twenty miles from Martinborough, at Pahaua. 4—l. 2a.

I.—2a

28

Mr. Phillips : That makes no difference. That should show you that I was right away at the Taueru. Witness (to Mr. Phillips): When did you get the delivery, Mr. Phillips ?—On the Monday at the Knoll. 249. Mr. Phillips.] At any rate, you knew that I came to you on the Thursday, knew I had not put in my nomination-paper, and knew of the 1896 Act. Could you not have said, " Well, I will accept this nomination '"! —Did I not tell you to sit down and show me where I had power to accept it, and did I not state that then I would do it ? 250. I took that as bluff? —If you had shown it to me I would have done it. Mr. Armstrong: With reference to those letters that Mr. Phillips made so much of, and Mr. Deller's saying hosts of people have complained of me, I ask Mr. Deller to name any people that complained, and he will not do it. They will only make general allegations. I simply say to those allegations, when put to the test, they are not prepared to name anybody to prove them. It is only hearsay evidence.

Thursday, 16th December, 1897. The Eight Hon. E. J. Seddon examined. 1. The Chairman.] I understand, Mr. Seddon, that you appear before-the Committee to give evidence on the petition of Mr. Coleman Phillips ? —Were it not that there have been statements made that the appointment of Mr. Armstrong was an improper one I should not have deigned to have said anything in reply to statements made by Mr. Coleman Phillips. As to Mr. Armstrong having lost his head, the same thing has been said in respect to Mr. Coleman Phillips, and it is not for me to say whether either or both of them have, in respect to this matter, been troubled with an affliction of that kind. I must say, coming back to the first question, it is of importance to the Government, namely, the appointment of the Eeturning Officer for the district, it having been decided that the Besident Magistrate could not act as Eeturning Officer, and which evidently had been anticipated, because at that time there was a report current that Magistrates could not act. It became necessary to appoint a Eeturning Officer for this and other districts. The first intimation we had was the recommendation made by the member for the district, who recommended the clerk of the local body to be the Eeturning Officer. Then an application came from the clerk of another local body. Then there was an application by a local practitioner there. The Government made inquiries, with the result that they appointed Mr. Armstrong. At that time, as far as the Government knew, Mr. Armstrong was a man held in high respect in the district, capable of performing the duties; and, as far as we were concerned, we had every confidence that things would be done efficiently and well. As to my meeting, I received a requisition in the ordinary course to address the people in that part of the colony, as in other parts, and in response to that invitation I visited the district, met the people, and held the meetings. The innuendo that the result of this was Mr. Armstrong's appointment is absolutely incorrect. That Mr. Armstrong did attend those meetings and lost his head I should say is very far-fetched, and there is nothing in it at all. We then come to what occurred. I may say, when there, the people I met looked upon Mr. Phillips's standing as a joke. I may say Mr. Phillips has kept back something from you which he might have given you—namely, I had communications from him, in which he wanted me to interfere. He said if left alone with Mr. Buchanan he could win hands down —I think that was the general purport of these communications—and that brings me to the point which I absolutely deny with respect to the nomination of some one outside. I say Mr. Phillips must, of course, have been drawing upon his imagination in respect to that statement. The Government are not in the habit of nominating people over the heads of those standing in the district, nor did we nominate Mr. Hornsby over the heads of people in the Wairarapa District, or because they could not agree amongst themselves locally. As far as I remember, there was a meeting of the supporters and friends of the party, and they advised, and acting on that advice Mr. Hornsby, I think, contested the election, so that again Mr. Phillips is wrong there. Then, with regard to Mr. Armstrong's action in refusing the nomination, my own opinion on the matter was, it was wrong. Of course, the Government cannot lawfully interfere with the Eeturning Officers either to advise or dictate. The Eeturning Officer is there, and has the responsibility, which is his, not the Government's. To my mind it appeared that he (Mr. Armstrong) had committed an error of judgment, but the responsibility for the whole thing rests with Parliament. The Act is so vague that other Eeturning Officers put upon it the same construction, and fixed the last day for receiving at an earlier date than the interpretation of the Act would imply. lam satisfied in doing this Mr. Armstrong still believed he was within the law, and it certainly was not done with a view of injuring Mr. Phillips's candidature. My own feeling in the matter is, as far as the Government candidate's chances were concerned, Mr. Armstrong could not have done the Government candidates a greater injury than the refusal of Mr. Phillips's candidature. The support Mr. Phillips got would have been support which would have come to the Government. When Mr. Phillips first spoke to me I expressed my regret in very strong terms to him at what had occurred. Not that I expressed regret at Mr. Armstrong having lost his head, or anything with regard to Mr. Armstrong's conduct. I said I certainly regretted he was not a candidate, because his not being a candidate militated against the Government candidate's election, and, as I had been in the district, I knew the support given to Mr. Coleman Phillips—he was strong ; he had been lecturing round the local places for months. Those who were favourable to him were not Government supporters. Mr. Phillips is entirely wrong if he thinks it was on any other grounds his nomination was refused. I reckoned myself that Mr. Armstrong lost us that seat by not accepting Mr. Phillips's nomination. Again I say lam positive that Mr. Armstrong did not do that for the purpose of stopping Mr. Phillips being nominated, or from any improper motives ; it was simply the interpretation he placed upon the Act, and some of our oldest Eeturning Officers have done the same thing. As to

29

I.—2a

Mr. Phillips protesting against Mr. Armstrong and holding the colony responsible, I say we have Returning Officers and do our best —the colony is not responsible. The responsibility rests with Mr. Phillips. Any candidate, in a country subject to flood and accidents, who goes away into the bush out o£ the way, has himself to blame. Any man really intending to be a candidate ought to have left his nomination behind, and not left it to the last moment. I was surprised at his (Mr. Phillips) being there on the day at all. To give you my feeling on the matter, I came to the conclusion that Mr. Phillips had taken that way of getting out of a difficult position. Having been for years, as I believe he was, a supporter of Mr. Buchanan's, and having come forward on this occasion himself, it was just a nice way of getting out of the situation. The mind of the Government in respect to Mr. Armstrong's action was quite the reverse. We cannot interfere, but in this case we intimated to the Eeturning Officer—simply called his attention to the particular section, so that there should be no mistake as far as the Government were concerned. I think the most liberal interpretation should be given to an Act of Parliament, and no restriction should be put on any election. 2. Are you aware, Mr. Seddon, that Mr. Pollen has furnished the Committee, by request, with a statement of the number of Eeturning Officers who placed a different interpretation upon the Electoral Act to that which you state you think should have been given to it ?—No ; I have not seen that statement. 3. If you said in your evidence the Eeturning Officer of the Wairarapa committed an error of judgment, this would refer to eighteen other Eeturning Officers. What Minister of the Crown made the appointment? —I think the person who appointed Mr. Armstrong was Mr. Walker. 4. Mr. Lang.] I understood Mr. Seddon to say_he visited the district and held meetings ; was Mr. Armstrong present at those meetings?—He was present at one meeting. 5. That meeting was, I understand, to select candidates ? —No ; it was a meeting of the party, not solely for the selection of candidates. 6. Did you know, previous to Mr. Armstrong's appointment as Eeturning Officer, he had taken an active part in politics ?—Yes; Mr. Armstrong was a man that would not hide his light under a bushel, although I knew very little of Mr. Armstrong. I do not suppose I met him very often before, and on that point I may say I knew also that those who applied for the position had also taken an active part the other way. We asked Mr. J. C. McKerrow, who was a very fair and impartial man, to take the Eeturning Officership, and it was on his refusing that we took up Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Lewis.] Was Mr. Armstrong's name ever mentioned to you as a possible Government candidate? —No; and at the meeting that I was at after the banquet we were conferring amongst ourselves as to the chances of local candidates, who, at that time, had intimated their intention of standing. One of them was actually out and addressed meetings. This was a meeting to confer as to the situation, and I think Mr. Armstrong was there at that meeting, but Mr. Armstrong at that time was not appointed Eeturning Officer as far as my memory will carry me back. Bt. Hon. B. J. Seddon: To show you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Phillips has no grievance against the Government, he wired and wrote down as follows, and also received the following replies : — 26th November, 1897.—The Colonial Secretary, Wellington.—Adam Armstrong, Returning Officer, Wairarapa, refuses to accept my nomination to-day, on the grounds that time for it expired yesterday, as advertised by him. I protest strongly against this unwarranted action, relying on section 75, Electoral Act, 1893, and section 15, Electoral Act Amendment Act, 1806. Please instruct him to accept my nomination at once, and reply to me here. —Coleman Phillips, Carterton. Wellington, 26th November, 1896. —Coleman Phillips, Esq., Carterton. —I cannot instruct Returning Officer, who is a statutory officer.—Hugh Pollen. Wellington, 26th November, 1896.—A. Armstrong, Returning Officer, Carterton.—Be Mr. Coleman Phillips's nomination, I would refer you to section 15, " Electoral Act, 1896."—Hugh Pollen. Wellington, 27th November, 1896.—A. Armstrong, Returning Officer, Carterton. —It is considered desirable to point out that date for receiving nominations is fixed by Act, and that refusal to accept a nomination might be a ground for petition to declare election void. —Hugh Pollen. Featherston, 30th November, 1896.—The Colonial Secretary, Wellington. —In further reference to my telegram of 26th, I have to request that His Excellency interferes, under clause 168 of " The Electoral Act, 1893," in order to compel Returning Officer to accept my nomination for Wairarapa Electorate. Please reply to Featherston.—Coleman Phillips. The Colonial Secretary's Office, Wellington, New Zealand, Bth December, 1896.—Coleman Phillips, Esq., Featherston. —Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your telegram of 30th November, requesting that His Excellency the Governor be moved to interfere, under clause 168 of " The Electoral Act, 1893," in order to compel the Returning Officer for the Wairarapa Electoral District to accept your nomination as a candidate for election as a member of the House of Representatives for that Electoral District. In reply, lam directed by the Acting Colonial Secretary to inform you that he does not think this is a case within the terms of section 168 of " The Electoral Act, 1893. ' —I have, &c, Hugh Pollen. The Knoll, Featherston, 24th December, 1896.—The Hon. the Colonial Secretary, Wellington.—Sir,—l have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the Bth instant (No. 1407), and to ask you what your Government propose to do in the matter. From all I can hear now I stood an excellent chance of winning the eleotion had my nomination been received. My solicitors advise me that I have a good cause of action against the Returning Officer, but I have no doubt you are aware that it would be folly upon my part looking to him for my expenses or damages. Were he other than a man of straw I should certainly have entered an action against him for £5,000. The question follows: Is it right for the Government to appoint such men to the high judicial position of Returning Officer, who of all men hold the lives and liberties of the people most in their hands in the existing time of a general election. Be good enough to let me know what you intend to do in the matter, as it is useless my holding Mr. Armstrong responsible for what he did. I certainly must hold your Government so for appointing him.—l have, &c, Coleman Phillips. As far as the Government were concerned we could not interfere. Where the Government were to blame was even in sending the above. But as Mr. Phillips had communicated with the Government it was deemed advisable to send what we did, so that there would be no inadvertence. There is no doubt the Eeturning Officer refused the nomination believing that he was in the right. Mr. Phillips has been trea.ted very well by the Government, and how he could say the Government were to blame in the matter I cannot see.

I.—2a

30

EXHIBITS.

EXHIBIT No. 1. In the matter of the Electoral Act of 1893, and the election of a member of the House of Representatives for the Electoral Distriot of Wairarapa. Nomination-paper. To the Returning Officer of the Electoral District of Wairarapa. Wβ, the undersigned electors for the Electoral District of Wairarapa, do hereby nominate Mr. Coleman Phillips, of " The Knoll," Kaiwaiwai, near Peatherston, solicitor, with his consent, as a candidate at the election of a member of the House of Representatives for the aforesaid electoral district, the poll wherefor is appointed for the 4th day of December, 1896. Frederick Hayes, of Greytown, Carrier. Walter Joseph Lindop, of Carterton, Chemist. David McGill Lister, of Greytown, Baker.

I, Coleman Phillips, do hereby consent to the above nomination. Coleman Phillips, Solicitor, " The Knoll," Kaiwaiwai, near Featherston. Dated this 26th day of November, 1896,

Nominations closed on the 25th November, therefore the enclosed is returned.—A. Armstrong, Returning Officer, Wairarapa.—26/11/96.

™ EXHIBIT No. 2. s> ". %> j Notice of Polling-day. In pursuance of " The Eleotoral Act, 1893," I, Adam Armstrong, Returning Officer for the Electoral District of Wairarapa, do hereby give notice that, by virtue of a writ bearing date the 20th day of November, 1896, under the hand of the Clerk of Writs, an election will be held for the return of one qualified person to serve as a member for the said district; and that the latest day for receiving nominations of candidates will be the 25th day of November, 1896, and that the poll, if necessary, will be taken at the several polling-plaoes of the said district on the 4th day of December, 1896. Every man desirous of becoming a candidate must be nominated by not less than two electors of the district, by a nomination-paper as prescribed by section 75 of " The Electoral Act, 1893," delivered to the Returning Officer on or before the 25th day of November, 1896. The following are the polling-places for the Electoral District of Wairarapa : The Assembly Rooms, Carterton (principal) ; the Courthouse, Greytown ; the Courthouse, Peatherston ; the public hall, Gladstone ; the public hall, Martinborough ; premises of Messrs. Vennell, Wharau ; premises of Mr. Hales, Plat Point; premises of Mr. Tatham, Homewood; premises of Mr. Bennett, Otahuao ; premises of Mr. Birkett, Whareama; premises of Mr. McLaren, Pahaoa; premises of Mr. Riddiford, Waipawa; premises of Mr. Wilkinson, Hinaburn: the schoolhouse, Taueru; the schoolhouse, West Taratahi; the schoolhouse, Waingawa; the schoolhouse, Dalefield; the schoolhouse, Waihakeke; the schoolhouse, Morrison's Bush ; the schoolhouse, Kaiwaiwai; the schoolhouse, Pirinoa. Adam Armstrong, Returning Officer.

EXHIBIT No. 3. (Telegram.) Adam Aemstbong, Returning Officer, Wairarapa, refuses to accept my nomination to-day on the ground that time for it expired yesterday, as advertised by him. I protest stongly against this unwarranted action, relying on section 75, "Electoral Act, 1893," and section 15, ''Electoral Act Amendment Act, 1896." Please instruct him to accept my nomination at once, and reply to me here. The Colonial Secretary, Wellington. Coleman Phillips, Carterton. (Telegram.) I cannot instruct Returning Officer, who is a statutory officer. Coleman Phillips, Esq., Carterton. . Hugh Pollen, Wellington.

EXHIBIT No. 4. Notice op Polling-day, Wairarapa Electorate. I hereby give public notice that the following persons have been duly nominated as candidates for election to the Wairarapa Eleotoral Distriot (one member), the poll wherefor will be taken on the 4th day of Deoember, 1896, between the hours of 9 aan. and 6 p.m.:— Buchanan, Walter Clarke, of Tupurupuru, Gladstone, sheep-farmer. Horneby, John Thomas Marryat, of Wellington, journalist. And I do hereby further give notice that in pursuance of " The Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act, 1893," and Amendment Act, 1895, a poll will be taken of the electors of the said district on the 4th day of December, 1896, for the purpose of determining in respect of publicans' and accommodation licenses under the Licensing Acts —(1) Whether the present number of licenses is to continue ; (2) whether the number of any such licenses is to be reduced ; (3) whether any licenses are to be granted. The following are the polling-places for the Electoral District of Wairarapa for the electoral and licensing polls : The Assembly Rooms, Carterton (principal) ; the Courthouse, Greytown; the Courthouse, Featherston ; the publio hall, Gladstone ; the publio hall, Martioborourgh ; premises of Messrs. Vennell, Wharau; premises of Mr. Hales, Plat Point; premises of Mr. Tatham, Homewood ; premises of Mr. Bennett, Otahuao; premises of Mr. Birkett, Whareama; premises of Mr. McLaren, Pahaoa; premises of Mr. Riddiford, Waipawa; premises of Mr. Wilkinson, Hinaburn; the schoolhouse, Taueru; the schoolhouse, West Taratahi; the schoolhouse, Waingawa; the schoolhouse, Dalefield ; the schoolhouse, Waihakeke ; the schoolhouse, Morrison's Bush ; the schoolhouse, Kaiwaiwai; the sohoolhouse, Pirinoa. Dated at Carterton, this 26th day of November, 1896. Adam Armstrong, Returning Officer.

31

I.—2a

EXHIBIT No. 5. (Telegram.) In further reference to my telegram of 26th, I have to request that His Excellency interferes under clause 168 of " The Electoral Act, 1893," in order to compel Returning Officer to accept my nomination, Wairarapa electorate Please reply to Featherston. The Colonial Secretary, Wellington. Colbman Phillip .

(No. 1407.)) Sib, — Colonial Secretary's Office, Wellington, New Zealand, Bth December, 1896. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your telegram of the 30th November, requesting that His Excellency the Governor be moved to interfere under clause 168 of " The Electoral Act, 1893," in order to compel the Returning Officer for the Wairarapa Eleotoral District to accept your nomination as a candidate for election of a member of the House of Representatives for that electoral district. In reply, I am directed by the Acting Colonial Secretary to inform you that he does not think this is a case within the terms of section 168 of " The Electoral Act, 1893." I have, &c, Coleman Phillips, Esq., Featherston. Hugh Pollen.

EXHIBIT No. 6. Sib,— Carterton, Ist December, 1896. Your papers are herewith returned by registered letter. I presume you are aware that there is a subject or two in the Wairarapa fit for the lunatic asylum. I am, &c, A. Armstrong, Mr. C. Phillips, " The Knoll," Featherston. Returning Officer, Wairarapa.

EXHIBIT No. 7. Sib, — Carterton, 4th December, 1896. I herewith protest against this polling for the Wairarapa electorate, on the ground that my name does not appear on the voting-paper as a candidate for the election. I have, &0., Mr. Adam Armstrong, Returning Officer, Wairarapa Electorate. Coleman Phillips.

EXHIBIT No. 8. ear Sib, — " The Knoll," Featherston, Bth November, 1897. I would ask you to summon the following witnesses re my petition against Mr. Armstrong : — (1.) Mr. Gardener, butcher, Greytown : To prove that Mr. Armstrong said to him, on the 9th November, 1896, " You are not going to vote for Buchanan. We can get a bloody sight better man than that." (2.) Mr. Partridge, Oartertou : To prove that Mr. Armstrong, whilst Returning Officer, canvassed for subscriptions defray Mr. Hornsby's expenses. (3.) Mr. John L. Engel, storekeeper, Brooklyn, Wellington: To prove that Mr. Armstrong acted as Mr. Hornsby's agent at one polling-place in the electorate. (4.) W. 0. Buchanan, Esq., M.H.R., Wellington : To prove Armstrong's gross partisanship during the election, and his subsequent connection with the election petition against himself. (5.) Mr. Deller, Mayor, Carterton : To prove that Mr. Armstrong, a short time after refusing my nomination, refused his nomination to the Licensing Bench for purely partisan purposes. (6.) Mr. N. Grace, Gladstone : To prove similarly that Mr. Armstrong also refused his nomination. (7.) H. D. Bell, Esq., Wellington: To prove that, at the subsequent trial in the Stipendiary Magistrate's Court, Armstrong himself admitted his wrongful conduct. I regret that you could not allow me to call Mr. Evans and Mr. Gallic. I must now rely upon Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Bell. As both gentlemen reside in Wellington, no expense will be incurred by summoning them. I should be glad if you could fix upon Wednesday, the 17th November, as the date of hearing, as some of the witnesses could not attend on a Friday or Saturday. Yours, &c, R. Meredith, Esq., Chairman M to Z Public Petitions Committee. Coleman Phillips.

EXHIBIT No. 9. [Extract from the Wairarapa Weekly Times of about the 11th November, 1896 (Masterton).] The Waibabapa Seat. Four candidates have been named as supporters of the Government in the Wairarapa electorate—Mr. Coleman Phillips, Mr. Smith, Mr. Adam Armstrong, and Mr. Pownall. IE the Ministerial support goes to Mr. Adam Armstrong he becomes the most eligible candidate. The Liberals seem to be full of trouble in the Wairarapa electorate, and Mr. Seddon's visit last week has not quite reconciled them to their lot. Featherston and Greytown Liberals cannot be depended upon to do justice to a Oarterton candidate [Armstrong.]

EXHIBIT No. 10. [Extract from The Standard (Wairarapa) of about the 22nd Ootober, 1896.] The Waibabapa Seal Last night's Evening Post has the following : Mr. T. L. Buick, M.H.R. for Wairau, who is in the awkward position of being obliged to contest the new Wairau seat with Mr. 0. H. Mills, another supporter of the Government, has published a letter which he received from Mr. A. Armstrong, of Carterton, asking whether he would oppose Mr. Buohanan for Wairarapa if asked by requisition so to do. Mr. iSuiok does not see his way to accept the suggestion.

EXHIBIT No. 11. Mb. Colbman Phillips's Nomination. To th.c Editor. Sib, —In reply to " Enquirer," I need only cay that if Mr. Seddon has been so utterly reckless of the rights and liberties of the people as to appoint half a dozen Returning Officers like Mr. Adam Armstrong, then every election in their districts where informalities have occurred must be upset. It is striking at the very root of our free and representative Constitution to have strong partisans appointed to the high judicial post of Returning Officer. I request every elector who was going to vote for me not to vote at all now, as a protest against Mr. Armstrong's appointmeDti So grave is this case of mine that before it is done with the whole colony will ring with it, and, atrange

I.—2a

32

to say, it will toll the knell of the Seddon Government. For when our chief citizen, Mr. Seddon, appoints unfitting men to high judicial positions, the liberties—aye, sir, and lives—of the people are in danger. Mr. Armstrong has denied that he acted as agent for Mr. Hornsby in the Whareama, and I accepted his denial. I wish now to ask him: (1.) Did he form one of the party who invited Mr. Seddon up here ? (2.) Did he attend any of the Seddon meetings ? (3.) Did he write to Messrs. Buick and Mills to come up and contest the seat against Mr. Buchanan ? (4.) Is he not a pronounced partisan of the present Government? (5.) Is he not appointing Deputy Returning Officers also pronounced partisans? (6.) Will any man's votes be safe under such pronounced partisanship? (7.) Has he attended any of Mr. Hornsby's political meetings 1 I demand, sir, that the list of Deputy Returning Officers be published, in order that the whole electorate may know in whose hands the conduct of this election rests. Meantime I request all lovers of our rights and privileges to abstain from voting; to demand that a fresh election be held, and under the Stipendiary Magistrate, as of old, and not under Mr. Armstrong. I am, &c, Coleman Phillips.

EXHIBIT No. 12. A public address upon the present state of the colony and the purification of Parliament, by Coleman Phillips, will be delivered at the Dalefield School, Wednesday, 29th; Carterton—Lyceum, Friday, Ist May; Waihakeke School, Saturday, 2nd May; Gladstone Town Hall, Monday, 4th May ;in each instance at 8 p.m. Ladies invited to attend.

EXHIBIT No. 13. [Extract from the Wairarapa Observer, 9th February, 1897.] The Wairahapa Election Petitiok. Argument, which was begun on Wednesday, on the motion to upset the petition filed against the return of Mr. W. C. Buchanan for the Wairarapa seat, on the grounds that the petition was not presented in time, and that security for costs was not given as required by law, was continued in the Supreme Court on Saturday morning, before the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Conolly. On the question of the date of the declaration of the poll, Sir Eobert Stout —who, with Mr. Gray, supported the motion—submitted that the return of the writ was the declaration of the poll by the Returning Officer, who could not afterwards alter it. The indorsement on the writ, which was sent to the Clerk of Polls on Bth December, declared that Mr. Buchanan waa returned. If that was not the official declaration, he (Sir Robert) did not know what was. He contended that that'was the official declaration, which the Returning Officer could not afterwards withdraw ; that on returning the writ he fulfilled his office of Returning Officer, and had |no power to make any alteration on the 17th. Sir Robert intimated that he wished to examine the Returning Officer on his affidavit. Adam Armstrong, the Returning Officer, cross-examined by Sir Robert Stout, said he was a commission agent, residing at Carterton. Said ho had never been a Returning Officer before. He was not a candidate at the recent election. Prior to his appointment he had taken an interest in politics. Had invited Mr. Buiek to become a candidate for the Wairarapa seat. He was one of those who had invited Mr. Seddon to visit the Wairarapa and give an address. It was not for the purpose of influencing the election, but to hear him speak in the Wairarapa. He had generally attended the political meetings if he happened to be in the township. Had attended political meetings after the writs were issued. Did not ask any of the Deputy Returning Officers how they intended to vote. Knew they had a right to vote. The sureties to the bond were G. A. Fairbrother and J. Applin: the former was a brother-in-law of his. Had no consultation particularly with them about the petition. It was not a fact that he had been colloguing and talking with them. Might have spoken to them in a casual way. Did not see anything in the Act requiring him to take from the bondsmen an affidavit as to their standing. Was satisfied they could meet the bond. The petition was served on him on the 9th January, before 7 p.m. Fairbrother gave it to him in his (witness's) house; the bond was given to him in his house on the 12th January by Fairbrother during the afternoon. The bond was witnessed by another brother-in-law. Saw Mr. Brown, of the Wairarapa Observer, on the 11th December. Did not give him an advertisement that day. Had asked Brown to bring in the form of declaration published by Mr. Hutchison, Returning Officer at the previous election. Preferred the form used for the Wellington Suburbs. Brown brought in a copy, and altered it to suit the local requirements. Told him the figures might be altered next day. Had commenced to write out the form of advertisement giving the result of the licensing poll. Mr. Brown completed this form, and took the two away, with instructions to bring in proof next day, which he did. Told Brown to alter two figures on the 12th, and send copy to the Wairarapa Star. Never sigued the advertisement at all. Sir R. Stout at this Btage produced an affidavit filed by witness, stating that he wrote out the notice of the election of Mr. Buchanan on the 12th, and signed it that day, but in mistake inserted " 11th " for " 12th." He asked witness what he meant by swearing to that effect. Witness said it was wrong; he had made a mistake. On the 10th he found there was a case of double voting. That was two days after the writ was returned by him to the Clerk of Writs. Made up a list on Thursday showing the state of the poll so far as they knew. Appointed 7 p.m. to meet the scrutineers on Friday night. Mr. Moncrieff only came. Opened the Waingawa packet, and altered the total of the poll by one. Did not think he said on Thursday night " That gives Buchanan a majority of 337." The figures were jotted down on paper on Thursday, and on Friday night they were altered. There were present on Friday himself, his son, Mr. Moncrieff, and Constable Smart. Mr. Rathbone, another scrutineer, came in later. Told those present on Friday night what the exact numbers were. Told Mr. Brown on Saturday morning to send a copy of the advertisements to the Star. The specimen produced was a copy taken by Mr. Brown for the licensing advertisement. The pencil-writing was in Brown's hand, and that written in ink was by witness. The signature was his, and the date 11th December, 1896. The date of the general election was 4th December, and he returned the writ on the Bth December. To Mr. Skerrett; The double voting was disoussed on Thursday, and the scrutiny was made on Friday. The writ was returned before the beginning k of the scrutiny. The scrutiny altered the result of the poll, and afieoted the aggregate record at first announced. One vote was taken off Mr. Buchanan, and his majority reduced by one. Ha said at the time that one vote was taken off Mr. Buohanan's total, but did not mention how it would affect the result. Opened the gummed-down corners of the Waingawa ballot-papers until he came to the number which showed on the roll had been twice voted for. The true voter was at Carterton, the personator at Waingawa. Judge Conolly said it was not for the Returning ;Officer to decide which one had the right to vote: he should have disallowed both. Mr. Skerrett agreed with his Honour that that would be the course where a man voted in two places, but not where one man personates another. Judge Conolly said it appeared from the evidence that on a verbal message from the Deputy Returning Officer at Waingawa, one vote had been taken off Mr. Buchanan's total. Sir Robert submitted it was perfectly apparent that no declaration had been made later than Friday. There was iio proof of any declaration having been made in writing at all. The declaration made, whether right or wrong, in the writ transmitted on the Bth, with the indorsement upon it, was the only declaration that could be made, and was therefore the official declaration of the poll, which the Returning Officer could not alter. He had no power to make any declaration after the expiration of seven days, nor had he power to delegate his authority to a newspaper. He had no more authority to declare Mr. Buchanan elected on the 12th than he had to declare Mr. Hornsby, the other candidate. If so, where was the line to be drawn ? The petition clearly was not in time, and should be taken off the file. Regarding the petition itself, it would be shown in the Election Court that when Mr. Grantham signed it he did not know what it was about. The bond, too, was informal, and could not be sued upon. Mr, Skerrett, in reply, said he would submit that the only purposes of a declaration were—first, to make public the result of the election ; and, seoondly, to fix the date on which certain periods were to commence, such as the .

33

I.—2a.

date on which a petition could be presented or a return of expenses be furnished. He contended that the declaration required by section 120 must be by public notice, and the only public notice possible under the circumstances was that appearing in the Observer of the 12th December. The delay in publication could not affect the validity of the election, and the time for making a petition under the Election Petitions Act commenced from the de facto making of a declaration. It was clear that the declaration contemplated by section 120 of the Election Petitions Act was separate and distinct from the returns required under sections 123 and 124. The Court reserved its decision.

Wellington, 9th February, 1897, Their Honors Judges Conolly and Prendergast gave their deoision this morning on the motion by Sir Robert Stout to remove the petition of one Grantham, against the return of Walter Clarke Buchanan as member for Wairarapa, from the file. Their Honors held that the indorsement of the writ by the Returning Officer, Mr. A. Armstrong, on the Bth December, was a sufficient declaration that Mr. Buchanan was elected, and that therefore the lodging of the petition was not within the limit of time prescribed by the Act. No costs were allowed.

EXHIBIT No. 14. Dear Sib, — 30th November, 1896. I beg to inform you that I have appointed scrutineers at polling-booths as under. All of them are unpaid : At Carterton, James Moncrieff ; Greytown, Richard Wylie ; Faathersfcon, Kent Johnston ; Martinborough, Thomas Parr; Pirinoa, William Hume ; Upper Pahaoa, Robert McLaren ; Waipawa, Earl Bunny ; Flat Point, William Henry Worster ; Homewood, William Bennett; Wharau, Reginald Bennett; Hinaburn, John Henry Whishaw ; Kaiwaiwai, James Williams; Morrison's Bush, William Alexander Tweeddale; Dalefield, Enoch Barnes; Waihakeke, ; Gladstone, James Fletcher ; Bennett's, Otahuao, Alexander Turner ; Taueru, George McHattie. Yours, &c, The Returning Officer, Wairarapa Electorate. W. C. Buchanan.

EXHIBIT No. 1 . Scrutineers. Assembly-rooms, Carterton: James Moncrieff, jun., and Thomas J. at Courthouse, Greytown: Richard Wylie. Courthouse, Featherston : Charles John Kent Johnston. Public hall, Gladstone : James Fletcher. Public hall, Martinborough : Thomas Edgar Parr. Premises of Messrs. Vermeil, Wharau: Reginald Vennell. Premises of Mr. Hales, Flat Point: William Henry Worster. Premises of Mr. Tatham, Homewood : William Bennett, jun. Premises of Mr. Bennett, Otahuao : Alexander Turner. Premises of Mr. Birkett, Whareama: John Morrison. Premises of Mr. McLaren, Pahaoa : Robert McLaren. Premises of Mr. Riddiford, Waipawa ; Earle Bunny. Premises of Mr. Wilkinson, Hinaburn : John William Wishaw. Schoolhouse, Taueru : George McHattie. Schoolhouse, West Taratahi: John Bairstow. Schoolhouse, Waingawa : John Lucena. Schoolhouse, Dalefleld : Enoch Barnes. Schoolhouse, Waihakeke ; Frederick William Wood. Schoolhouse, Morrison's Bush : William Alexander Tweeddale. Schoolhouse, Kaiwaivvai : James Richard Williams. Schoolhouse, Pirinoa : William Hume.

List of Persons prom whom Committee-booms have been hired by me or o m Be Milton Rhodes Varnham, of Greytown: Foresters' Hall.

To the Returning Officer, Wairarapa Electoral District, Carterton. The foregoing is a list of the scrutineers appointed by me at the present election, and all of them are unpaid. Foregoing also is a list of persons from whom committee-rooms have been hired. I have no clerks or messengers.

Dated this 2nd day of December, 1896. W. C, Buchanan.

(No. 182.) EXHIBIT No. 16. Colonial Secretary's Offioa, Wellington, 13th April, 1897. In accordance with the request contained in your letter of the 2nd instant, I enclose herewith copies of letters from Messrs. G. W. Deller (Mayor of Carterton), D. Kelly, and W. Eagle, respecting your appointment aa Returning Officer for the Wairarapa Licensing District. I have, &c, A. Armstrong, Esq., Returning Officer, Wairarapa Electoral District, Carterton. Hugh Pollen.

Dear Sir,— Carterton, 9th March, 1897. Being Mayor of the Borough of Carterton, and having received innumerable complaints and general expressions of dissatisfaction from settlers of different political opinions re the continuance of Mr. A. Armstrong in the position of Returning Officer for this electoral district, I take it as a public duty to notify you with regard to the matter. I would respectfully ask you to look up the evidence given by him in the Supreme Court, Wellington, in connection with the late election petition against Mr. Buchanan, when, I feel sure, you will at once see that Mr. A. Armstrong is totally unqualified to fill so responsible a public position with any degree of fairness. He has also been for many years a most ardent and rabid Prohibitionist, and that alone would tend to show his inability to conduct so important an election as the Wairarapa licensing election without bias. Yours, &c, The Colonial Secretary, Wellington. G. W. Deller, Mayor, Carterton.

Dear Sir, — Carterton, 15th February, 1897. I respectfully beg to enter my emphatic protest against A. Armstrong Iting again appointed as Returning Officer for the licensing election, and I feel sure, had you made the most ordinary inquiry before he was appointed for tne general election he would not have received the appointment. lam not only speaking for myself but for numberless others, who were simply aghast at his being appointed. I am, &c, The Colonial Secretary, Wellington. W. Eagle.

I.—2a

34

Carterton, 15th February, 1897. I, the undersigned, hereby protest against A, Armstrong being Returning Officer at the forthcoming liceniing election, Colonial Secretary, Wellington. D. Kelly, Carterton.

EXHIBIT No. 17 [Extract from the Evening Post, 6th February, 1897.] The Wairarapa Election Petition. Argument, which was begun on Wednesday, on the motion to upset the petition filed against the return of Mr. W. C. Buchanan for the Wairarapa seat, on the grounds that the petition was not presented in time, and that security for costs was not given as required by law, was continued in the Supreme Court this morning, before the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Conolly. On the question of the date of the declaration of the poll, Sir Robert Stout—who, with Mr. Gray, supported the motion —submitted that the return of the writ was the declaration of the poll by the Returning Officer, who could not afterwards alter it. The indorsement on the writ, which was sent to the Clerk of Polls on Bth December, declared that Mr. Buchanan was returned. If that was not the official declaration, he (Sir Robert) did not know what was. He contended that that was the official declaration, which the Returning Officer could not afterwards withdraw ; that on returning the writ he fulfilled his office of Returning Officer, and had no power to make any alteration on the 17th. Sir Robert intimated that he wished to examine the Returning Officer on hia affidavit. Adam Armstrong, who was Returning Officer for the Wairarapa election, said that prior to his appointment he took an interest in the election, and wrote a letter to Mr.Buick, ex-M.H.R., asking him to contest the seat. He was also one of those who invited the Premier to speak in the Wairarapa—not with any intention of influencing the election, however. He generally attended the political meetings of both sides. Deputy Returning Officers were appointed by him, buttle never asked any of them before he appointed them how they were going to vote. He knew they had a right to vote. The sureties to the bond which he had given in connection with the petition were lodged by Messrs. Fairbrother (his brother-in-law) and Applin. It was not a fact that he had talked particularly to the sureties about the petition. He accepted them as sureties without question, because he was convinced they were able to meet any demand which might happen to be made on them. The petition was served on the 9th January before 5 o'clock, he thought, but would not swear it ;at any rate, before 7 o'clock. Mr. Fairbrother gave it to him. It was served at his own house. The bond was given on the 12th, also by Fairbrother, during the afternoon. He transmitted it to the Registrar of the Supreme Court on the 13th. The witness to the bond was another brother-in-law. He gave no advertisement to Mr. Brown, journalist, of Cartorton, on the 11th December, but allowed Mr. Brown to take away a draft modelled on the Wellington Suburbs declaration, on the understanding that he was to have a proof next day. He did not remember touching the proof, but thought that he gave the correct numbers to Brown, who filled them in. So far as the advertisement in the paper was concerned, he never signed it. The statements in his affidavit as to signing and dating the advertisement were therefore incorrect. There was a scrutiny of votes on the 9th and 10th December, and a case of double voting was discovered. A sort of seal was put on the packets of ballot-papers after the scrutiny on Thursday night. They opened every packet, and had a recount of the votes, with the exception of those taken at the Waingawa booth, which were not opened on Thursday night because it was too late. The following day the Waingawa papers were opened, and a vote was disallowed, being treated as a case of personation. He announced on Thursday night a majority of 337 for Mr. Buchanan, but on Friday night the numbers were altered, and the people present were told of the result. On Saturday morning he gave Mr. Brown an official envelope, and directions to give a copy of the advertisement to the Wairarapa Star at Masterton. To Mr. Skerrett: On Thursday the double vote was discussed, and the scrutiny adjourned until Friday. There were some six cases of double voting or personation altogether. The writ had been returned before the beginning of the scrutiny. The instructions given to Brown in regard to the advertisement declaring the poll were that it was to be inserted on Saturday. To Sir Robert Stout: There may have been a recount of the Waingawa papers on the Thursday; he was not sure. Continuing his argument, Sir Robert submitted it was perfectly apparent that no declaration had been made later than Friday. There was no proof of any declaration having been made in writing at all. The declaration made, whether right or wrong, in the writ transmitted on the Bth, with the indorsement upon it, was the only declaration that could be made, and was therefore the official declaration of the poll, which the Returning Officer could not alter. He had no power to make any declaration after the expiration of seven days, nor had he power to delegate hia authority to a newspaper. He had no more authority to declare Mr. Buchanan elected on the 12th than he had to declare Mr. Hornsby, the other candidate. If so, where was the line to be drawn? The petition clearly was not in time, and should be taken off the file. Regarding the petition itself, it would be shown in the Election Court that when Mr. Grantham signed it he did not know what it was about. The bond, too, was informal, and could not be sued upon.

[Extract from the Evening Post, 9th February, 1897.] Election Petitions.—The Waibahapa Case. —Mr. Buchanan bbtains the Seat. The judgment of the Court on the motion to remove from the file a petition lodged against the return of Mr. W. 0. Buchanan for the Wairarapa seat was delivered this morning. The Chief Justice said an election petition must be delivered to a Eeturning Officer within twenty-eight days after the declaration of the poll. The Returning Officer indorsed a writ on the Bth December that Mr. Buchanan had been elected, and transmitted it to the Clerk of Writs the same day. It was received by the Clerk of Writs on the 9th December. The election must clearly have closed, and the successful candidate determined upon, before the Returning Officer could have indorsed the writ. It was manifest that the Returning Officer could not by another count of votes or declaration have altered the effect of the return. The Returning Officer's proceedings after the indorsement and transmission were, he thought, nugatory and ineffective. Therefore, he either before the indorsement or by the indorsement made the required declaration that Mr. Buchanan was elected. Though there was no evidence that the Returning Officer did make an express declaration that Mr. Buchanan had a majority, his Honour thought he must have done so. An express declaration by advertisement that Mr. Buohanan was elected was not essential to the validity of the election, and even if it were, that was not the present question. His Honour was of opinion that the declaration could not be subsequent to the return, and consequently that the petition had not been presented in time. He was inclined to think that the intention of the Act was that the declaration was to be by advertisement, and also that an authorised advertisement of the number of votes would have amounted to such a declaration. The judgment of Mr. Justice Conolly was to the following effect : After enumerating the facts, hia Honour said the proceedings of the Returning Officer were exceedingly irregular. There seemed no reason to suppose that he had any intention to act improperly in any way, but he clearly did not understand the Act under which he was working. It seemed clear that the peoper order of proceeding would have been—first, in the presence of the scrutineers, to have taken down the number of votes given for each candidate at each polling-booth as supplied by those who took the votes at the different places ; next, to have examined the rolls for double voting, and, if necessary, to have opened the parcels of ballot-papers used for such double votes, and to disallow them ; and finally, to give public notice of the number of votes given, and in some way to declare who was elected. All thi ehould have been done within such time as to permit him to indorse and transmit the writ to the Clerk of the Writ

35

I.—2a.

within the prescribed time, and before such transmission. His Honour was of the opinion that the indorsement upon the writ was a sufficient compliance with the terms of section 120, which require the Returning Officer to declare the name of the candidate who had been elected. It was a distinct statement by the Returning Officer to that effect, and, having made it, and parted with the writ, it would not have been possible for him to make a different declaration or alter his return. Even if it had been made in error he could not have made another return, and the one whioh he had made could only have been questioned upon petition. It was not, in his Honour's opinion, neoessary that publio notice should be given of this declaration. That is only required as to the number of votes given ; and the Court would not be justified in altering the grammatical construction of the section in a case when it is intelligible as it stands, and in inferring a different intention on the part of the Legislature. As to what was the date of the notice given by advertisement, neither date, the 11th or the 12th, would help the petitioner. If the Court had ruled that the 11th was the date of the declaration, the petition would have been too late ; and if the 12th, the notice would have been too late. The language of section 121 is imperative that in no case shall the official declaration be delayed for longer than seven days after the day of polling. If, therefore, it had been dated the 12th, as the Returning Officer says it should have been dated, it would have been invalid on the face of it. The objections to the form of the bond did not appear to his Honour to be material. There was negligence on the part of the parties who signed it, and on the part of the Returning Officer in receiving and being satisfied with such an ungrammatical document; still, his Honour thought it could be enforced if necessary. The petition would be removed from the file, as prayed, Sir Robert Stout, who appeared in support of the motion that the petition should be removed, asked that costs be allowed. Mr. Skerrett pointed out that the fault was entirely that of the Returning Officer, not that of the petitioner. It would be unjust and unfair under the circumstances to allow costs against the petitioner. Sir Robert Stout said that if the petitioner had followed the advertisement of the Returning Officer there might be some excuse for him, but he did not do this. Mr. Justice Conolly said that before making up his mind about the matter he would like to know the future intentions regarding the petition. Mr. Skerrett said he would submit to the dismissal of the petition. He pointed out that he had offered every facility for arguing the matter. Their Honours thought that the case was not one for costs. The question of the dismissal or withdrawal of the petition from the Election Court was allowed to stand over, in order that Sir Robert Stout and Mr. Skerrett might confer on the subject.

EXHIBIT No. 18. [Extract from the Wairarapa Leader, 21st October, 1897.] A Malicious Cock-and-Bull Stoby. In another column we publish from Hansard the remarks of Mr. W. 0. Buchanan, M.H.R., on the corrupt abuse of patronage by the Government, particularly as applied to Mr. Adam Armstrong, and we feel sure, when these remarks are read by his honest supporters —we believe that amongst his supporters there are many such—they will hang their heads with shame as they reflect that their votes have been cast to elect a man to represent them who should be so cowardly as to use his position in the House to utter words intended to besmirch a man denied the opportunity of reply. And what, after all, is there in what Mr. Buchanan says? Let us run through with him. He says that " the conduct of the Returning Officer was, in the last degree, discreditable," which, we all know, is, " not to put too fine a point upon it," a far-stretched statement. On no former occasion was the wants of eleotors, as to polling-booths, more carefully attended to ; never before were deputies chosen with more judgment to secure efficiency ; never before was there greater despatch in furnishing returns ; and never before was less opportunity given for picking holes in the conduct of a Wairarapa election than on the occasion when Mr. Buchanan defeated Mr. Hornsby—and Mr. Buchanan knows all this as well as we do. Then Mr. Buchanan complains that the Colonial Secretary asked him for a recommendation, and did not adopt it. Now, we will ask Mr. Buchanan one question, and it is this : Was the man Mr. Buchanan recommended a sane man ? The Supreme Court exonerated Mr. Armstrong from Mr. Buchanan's contention that he (Mr. Armstrong) was " guilty of practices of the gravest character." The Government did not " immediately reward him by appointing him Eeturning Officer for the licensing election," for the simple reason that, being already appointed Returning Officer for Wairarapa, no special appointment to oonduct the licensing election was necessary. A man in Mr. Buchanan's position must be aware of this. Then, as to the written protests from residents of the district, the protests were published in the Leader, and, if Mr. Buchanan were in touch with his constituents and knew the ridicule which was meted out on the said protests he would hardly have mentioned them. His supporters should keep him better informed on such matters. At the licensing election Mr. Buchanan says the Returning Officer " deliberately rejected the nominations of two of the candidates, though he was legally advised that he was acting contrary to law " ; but Mr. Buchanan did not act honestly and add that the advice in question came from the counsel of a rejected nominator, nor go further and tell the House that Mr. Armstrong was supported in his opinion by the highest legal talent in this colony ; nor was Mr. Buchanan honest enough to tell the House that it was Mr. Buchanan's duty, as a member of the County Council, to see that the Returning Officer was provided with counsel to support him in the hearing of the petition, and that it was undoubtedly through Mr. Buchanan's and other people's neglect in this direction that the election was declared void. Mr. Buchanan, if he were a candid, truthful man, would have explained to the House that it was his (Mr. Buchanan's) fault that the election was declared void, owing to his neglect of duty, and that the grounds upon which the Returning Officer refused certain nominations remain still to be argued. We wish to be distinctly understood. We do not blame the Magistrate for his decision, but we say no Magistrate can arrive at a decision with only one side of a case shown to him. As to Mr. Armstrong's appointment as valuer, it is the very general opinion, and ours, that the Government has chosen a man with every qualification for the work ; but of this we shall be better able to judge when the result is open to our inspection. "Hβ has been appointed, Sir, to value the property of decent, hard-working, honest settlers," says Mr. Buchanan. But why does Mr. Buchanan stop there ? Has Mr. Armstrong not also to value the property of the dishonest settlere, the indecent settlers, and the lazy settlers ? Will he not also have to value the property of the slanderous settlers, the cowardly settlers the settlers who malign a man they are afraid of ? Will he not also even have to certify to the value of the property of Mr. Buchanan ? There is one feature of Mr. Buchanan's remarks that compensates the electors of Wairarapa for the extravagance thereof, and it is this: " Charges have been levelled at the Government of corrupt abuse of patronage on many sides, and it is interesting to get at the bottom of these allegations." Mr. Buchanan, no doubt, took the strongest case he could as his instance, and now that it is public we find it is nothing more than a malicious cock-and-bull story. If other allegations under the same head are fully investigated they will, no doubt, prove to have as little foundation, and the fact will remain that, notwithstanding the croaking, we now have the most trustworthy Government that this fair colony has ever had.

EXHIBIT No. 19. Judgment by Chief Justice. Armstrong v. The Wairarapa County Council. In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Wellington District. Section 16 (1) of " The Alcoholic Liquors Control Act, 1895," provides that all coats and expenses incident to the s—l. 2a.

I.—2a.

36

election of a Licensing Committee, including charges for printing and advertising the necessary notices relating thereto, shall be paid by the controlling local authority oT the district. The subsections (a) (b) and (c) of section 16 provide for contributions by other local authorities towards the expenses; and subsection [d) provides that the controlling local authority may recover such contributions from those other local authorities. By the Act of 1893 the electoral districts for the time being for election of members of the House of Representatives are to be the'licensing districts. The term " controlling local authority," as used in the said section 16, is explained by reference to the 9th section of the Act of 1893, for thereby, where there are more'local authorities than one having jurisdiction within a licensing district, the Governor is to appoint which of such local authorities is to be deemed to have authority throughout the licensing district. That section provides that the local authority so appointed is to " make all necessary appointments and do all things required for the conduct of elections and for the general administration of the Licensing Acts within the licensing districts." Section 10 of the Act of 1893 (which section is repealed by subsection (2) of section 16 of the Act of 1895) contains a provision with the same object as section 16 of the Act of 1895. That section, however, provides that all costs and expenses incident to the election of the Licensing Committee, "and of the general administration of the Act," should be paid by the local authority having jurisdiction throughout the district. Section 10 had a somewhat similar provision as to contributions by the other local authorities and the recovery thereof by the local authority appointed to have jurisdiction throughout the district. The term " local authority " is interpreted by the Interpretation Act of 1888, section 4, to be the Council or other governing body of a county, city, town, &c, and from that interpretation, and by reference also to subsection (4) of section 5 of the Act of 1882 (repealed by the Act of 1893) and subsection (8) of section 7of the Act of 1893, and section 109 of the Act of 1881, it seems clear that the term " local authority " means such one of such governing bodies —that is, County Council, Road Boards, &c.—as the Governor appoints for the particular licensing district. In this case the Governor has appointed the County of Wairarapa South to be the local authority to have jurisdiction throughout the licensing district. In " The Counties Act, 1886," a distinction is recognised between the "local authority," meaning the Council, and the corporate body of inhabitants of the county. The incorporated body of inhabitants is, no doubt, by Act, the Council, and the Council is to exercise all powers given to the incorporated body. All moneys received by the Council under any Act are to be paid to the county fund. The license-fees are, by " The Licensing Act, 1881," section 109, to be paid to the treasurer of the county, and form part of the county fund. On the whole, therefore, I think that if any contract, or debt, or pecuniary liability has been created by section 16 of the Act of 1895, it is the contract or debt of the incorporated inhabitants of the county, and not of the members of the Council. The Council are substantially the agents of the inhabitants ; and though the local authority—that is, the Council —is mentioned as the body to pay, what is meant is that body as agents for the incorporated body. But in my opinion section 16 of the Act of 1895 does not give to the plaintiff a right of action against either the Council or the county for the recovery of costs and expenses incident to the election of the Committee, including the costs and expenses of advertising necessary notices. By the Act of 1893, section 7, Committees are to be elected in the manner for the time being by law provided for election of members of the House of Representatives. The Returning Officer for the House of Representatives elections is to be the Returning Officer for Licensing Committee elections. The plaintiff appears to be the Returning Officer. It is also clear that he has to give certain notices (see section 19 of the Act of 1895; subsection (4) of section 7of the Act of 1893 ; and, generally, subsection (3) of section 7). Returning Officers for the House of Representatives elections have to advertise "nominations and withdrawals," to cause ballot-papers to be printed, and provide polling-booths, and appoint clerks and a deputy at each booth, and other things. It is not enacted that the Returning Officer, as to the House of Representatives elections, is, in the first instance, to pay the expenses of these things, and recover or he recouped them ; though, no doubt, expense must be incurred. The Governor may authorise and direct all such moneys as may be required for paying expenses lawfully incurred, or to be incurred, to be paid out of the Public Account. The Returning Officers are to be paid such salaries as are to be appropriated by the General Assembly. I see no reason to think that the intention was that in the election for the House of Representatives Returning Officers were to enter into contracts or otherwise to render themselves personally liable in respect of any matter which could only be dono at expense. The person doing the act on faith of being paid must look, apparently, elsewhere. The Act of 1895 provides that the cost and expense of taking the "licensing polls are to be paid out of moneys to be appropriated by Parliament for the purpose." The Returning Officer, as regards such licensing poll, would not enter into any contracts, or render himself personally liable for these expenses. Nor do I think that it was intended he should with regard to Licensing Committee elections. Though the Returning Officer is to provide polling-booths and appoint deputies and poll-clerks, &c, for their Licensing Committee elections, the Legislature has not provided that he is to pay for these things or recover the expenditure from the controlling authority; though it does provide that the costs of such matters are to be paid by that authority. The provision seems to put the Returning Officer, with regard to these elections, in the same position as he is with regard to elections for the House of Representatives. What that is in practice I do not know : but the Legislature has not said, even as to the House of Representatives elections, that he is to pay out what he thinks fit, and recover his expenditure. He is probably, in practice, under the control of the Executive Government, and the Exeoutive Government pays direct to those whom the Returning Officer nominally employs, and to those who provide what is required. lam unable to conclude that the 16th section of the Act of 1895 does give to the plaintiff any right of action against either the County Council or the corporate body for the payment to him of the costs and expenses incident to the election of the Committee. A breach of a statutory duty, whether expressly or impliedly, to pay money to an individual or to a corporate body may give that individual or body a right to be enforced by action ; but here the statute does not point out the plaintiff as a person to whom any such duty is owing. With regard to members of the Committee in respect of their expenses of attending meetings, their cases may be different. There is but little authority to be found in the question as to what language in a statute gives such a right of action. In Hopkins v. Mayor of Swansea (8 L.J. Ex. 121), Lord Abinger mentions with approval a dictum by Lord Holt in Ewen v. Jones (6 Mod. 26), as cited in Comyn's Digest, title " Debt " (A. 9). In Comyn it is stated, " Debt lies upon any statute which gives an advantage to another for the receiving of it." The dictum of Lord Holt there referred to is, " For whenever a statute enacts anything or prohibits anything for the advantage of any person, that person shall have remedy to recover the advantage given him, or to have satisfaction for the injury done him, by law, contrary to the same statute, for it would be a fine thing to make a law for which one has a right, but no remedy but in equity." In Addison v. The Mayor of Preston (21 L.J., N.S., C.P. 146) it was held that the action would not lie for salary in arrear, on the ground that the mere appointment under a statutory power to appoint did not give a right of action against the corporate body, though the statute provides that salaries should be paid by the treasurer out of the borough fund. The reason of the decision was that if judgment were obtained in an action other property of the corporation beyond the borough fund might be attached; and therefore, as Jervis, C.J., in effect, says, "The officer must resort to his prerogative remedy" to reach the particular fund out. of which the Legislature had provided the salary should be paid. The Court refuses a prerogative writ of mandamus where there is another sufficient remedy. Therefore the cases where that writ has been granted to compel the payment of moneys payable by virtue of a statute by one corporate body to another, or by a corporate body to an individual, are to some extent authorities that in such a case an action does not lie. In re Birmingham (10 Q. 8.), the prerogative writ was granted to the corporate body to pay to another corporate body expenses which a statute had provided should be paid by the governing body of the other. It was not in these cases suggested by the Court or otherwise that in such cases an action would have lain. It is to be observed that in these cases the writ was addressed to the corporate body, though the statute imposed the duty on the governing body ; and also that, though the body to pay and the body to receive were expressly mentioned, an action was not brought, and the writ was not refused, on the ground that an action might have been brought.

37

I.—2a

In Regina v. Gloucester (5 Q.B. 862) the writ was granted, though the individual entitled to payment of the fees was the applicant for the writ. It was not said there that he should sue. In Regina v. the London and Northwestern Railway Company (G5 L.J. 2), though the prerogative writ was allowed, it was said that ordinarily it would not be granted where there was another sufficient remedy, and that the proper remedy in the case should have been an action at the suit of the Postmaster-General for the non-performance of the statutory duty, with a claim for that kind of mandamus which can be claimed in an ordinary action. The statute was one directing a railway company to provide certain facilities for the carriage of mails. As the Postmaster-General is the carrier of all mails, the duty was one owing to him. In the present case no special fund is created out of which these expenses are to be paid. Moneys are, by the Counties Act, to be paid to the county fund, and out of that fund all moneys are to be paid. The license-fees, though payable to the local bodies, are primarily the fund for the payment of these expenses ; but the local bodies' responsibility is not limited to the fees. The ground of the decision in Addison v. Preston supra does not, therefore, exist here. There, as already noticed, it was held that the plaintiff could not sue for his salary because such salary was payable out of a particular fund, and not payable by the corporate body absolutely—that is, out of any of its funds. What is deficient in the plaintiff's case here is that he is unable to invoke any statutory provisions creating a liability to him—at any rate, a debt or oontract and liability. If an action had been maintained by the plaintiff, I think he could have recovered only such costs and expenses as he had reasonably incurred. The plaintiff cannot in this action claim a prerogative writ of mandamus, but only that kind of mandamus which is olaimable in an ordinary action, and if a plaintiff cannot maintain an ordinary action he cannot claim a mandamus of that kind. Therefore, my answer to the first question is that, though the Council is the controlling local authority, an action, if maintainable, would be against the corporate body of the county. As to the second question, limiting my answer to the claim of the plaintiff, I answer it in the negative. As to other expenses and costs, such as to Committee members' travelling-expenses, they perhaps could sue the county : that question is not raised in this case. As I understood at the argument, I was only to give an opinion as to whether, if the plaintiff could sue, he could recover expenses thrown away by his wilful misconduct. As I think he cannot sue at all, the question does not arise. It seems, however, impossible to suppose that if the plaintiff could sue he could recover expenses of such proceedings. The case might be different if the expenses were only of proceedings which, by reason of mistake either in his ministerial or judicial action, had been declared invalid.

EXHIBIT No. 20. [Extract from the Wairarapa Leader.] Licensing Election Expenses. At the meeting of the Wairarapa South County Council on Thursday last the Council went into committee, and for what ? In order to prevent the public from knowing their contemptible actions. They presumably were considering the Returning Officer, and his expenses for the licensing election for the year 1897. Our representative presented himself at the meeting as usual, but was greeted by a chorus of "We are in committee." And as to those expenses, we have endeavoured on several occasions to get from the County Clerk (Mr. H. H. Wolters) the expenses of the 1894 election, but we were put off from time to time, he stating he was too busy. Being pressed, he at last positively declined to give us the returns, and we have sought the information elsewhere. Our readers will not wonder at the Clerk's refusal when they see the figures, which we now give. The expenses of 1894, under Mr. Hutchison, S.M., amounted to £189 9s. 2d. In 1897, under Mr. Armstrong, they only amounted to £150 3s. 6d., showing that Mr. Armstrong conducted the election for £39 ss. Bd., or, in round numbers, £40 less than the Stipendiary Magistrate. The Stipendiary Magistrate had facilities that were denied Mr. Armstrong, and yet the fact remains that the conduot of the election was faultless, and the cost £40 less than on the former occasion. We feel sure the ratepayers will feel grateful to Mr. Armstrong for keeping the expenses down as he has done. Our readers, as sensible men and women, fully understand all the fuss and bother over this election in the precincts of the County Council chambers.

EXHIBIT No. 31. Sir,— " The Knoll," Peatherston, 30th November, 1896. I again, for the third time, tender you my nomination, together with the £10 deposit. There is ample time yet for you to accept it if you choose to do so, seeing that it was twice tendered you before the legal closing time—viz., 5 p.m. on the 27th. You require no clause in the Act for you to amend your error. The conduct of the election rests with you, and your duty is to act as an S.M., and administer justice in the matter, not to favour any one side. I have, &c, Coleman Phillips. p.S.—You have practically ruined my chance of election now, as everybody thinks me out of the field. I shall hold you responsible for all my expenses, and also in damages. Mr. Adam Armstrong, Beturning Officer, Wairarapa Electorate.

EXHIBIT No. 22. Dear Sir, — Carterton, 20th November, 1897. Mr. Coleman Phillips, in his evidence yesterday before the Public Petitions Committee, in support of hia petition, made use of the following words, viz. : " That Mr. Hornsby had told him that Mr. Armstrong had, after he was appointed Returning Officer, canvassed for subscriptions to defray his (Mr. Hornsby's) election expenses." Kindly let me know if this statement is correot. Yours faithfully, J. T. M. Hornsby, Esq., New Zealand Times, Wellington. A. Armstrong. The statement, if made, was absolutely false.— J. T. M. Hornsby.—22nd November, 1897 i

Having been asked to state what I know of the private character of Mr. Adam Armstrong, I have pleasure in stating that I believe him to be moral in his life and temperate in his habits. Carterton, 27th November, 1897. W. Ballachey, Vicar of Carterton.

I have been intimately acquainted with Mr. Adam Armstrong for a period of fourteen years, during which time I have found him to be honest and upright in all his business dealings, and both able and willing to pay his debts and meet his engagements, whether debts of honour or otherwise. I also know him to be of good moral oharacter, and that he has earned the respect of all those who are intimate with him, despite the faot that his brusqueness of manner and efforts to expose anything underhand or dishonest has caused certain members of the community to circulate discreditable reports concerning him. Carterton, 29th November, 1897. James Stevens, J.P.

I was chairman of the Liberal Association at the time of the last general election, and still fill the position. I beg to certify that Mr. A. Armstrong, after the day of his appointment as Returning Officer, took no part in and did not attend Mr. Hornsby's committee meetings. As to the canard about Mr. Armstrong being a candidate, I can only say that his name was never considered by the Liberal party, or even suggested. William TJdy.

I.—2a

38

This is to certify that I have known Mr. Adam Armstrong, of Carterton, for the past fourteen or fifteen years, and have had many and varied opportunities of judging as to his character and respectability, having been associated with him in political, municipal, and social work in the distriot where he now resides. The following are the results of my observation: I have always found him to be straightforward and upright in his dealings, at all times anxious to promote the welfare of the district, and, in fact, I should say he has done more to further the interests of the Borough of Carterton than any other man amongst its residents. 79, Riddiford Street, Wellington, Ist December, 1897. Thos. Proctob, J.P.

EXHIBIT No. 23. Dear Sib,— Carterton, 4th December, 1897. In response to your letter of even date, re Mr. Coleman Phillips's statement " That your letters, as Returning Officer, were not considered by the Council as worth answering," I have only to remark that there could be no truth in it, as all letters are answered, and this would more especially apply to letters addressed to us officially by an officer holding your position. Yours faithfully, Adam Armstrong, Esq., Carterton. Henby R. Bunny, late Chairman, W.S.C.C.

EXHIBIT No. 24. (No. 1321.) Sib,— Colonial Secretary's Office, Wellington, 9th December, 1897. As requested, I have the honour to report, for the information of the Committee, that sixteen Returning Officers fixed Thursday, the 26th November, 1896, as the latest day for receiving nominations of candidates for election as members of the House of Representatives. One Returning Officer (Wairarapa District) fixed Wednesday, the 25th November, 1896, and one (Tuapeka District) fixed Tuesday, the 24th November, 1896. I have, &c, Hugh Pollen. The Chairman, Public Petitions Committee M to Z, House of Representatives, Wellington.

Approximate Cost of Paper.— Preparation, not given; printing (1,423 copies), £24 15s.

Authority : John Mackay, Government Printer, Wellington.—lB9B.

Price Is.