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.