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