STRATFORD ELECTION
HEARING OF PETITION
NUMBERS ON PAPERS
SOME INTERESTING DIALOGUE
. By TelcEraph—Special Reporter: V Stratford, March 10. The hearing! of the Stratford election petition was' continued to-day. before the Chief Justiceliind Mr. Justico Chapman. Mr. M. Myers appeared for. the petitioners, and Sir John Findlay, with him Mr. P. 'Levi,.(for tho respondent. . Mr. Myers, said that as the result of s c.onference with his learned friends they lia3 found that they were able to shorten tho proceedings. All tho persons named as being present at the picturo show on the night of December 1C were admitted by respondent's counsel to have been present.' If the practices complained of were held to be corrupt, then clearly Mr. Hino was entitled to the seat. Sir John Findlay said that, he was not prepared .to agree that if thechargo ■ of corrupt' practices was sustained Sir. Hine would be entitled to the seat, but probably Mr. Masters would be'disqualified from sitting as member,;and .from standing for some time as a candidate. In the circumstances, Mr. Masters was not interested in any question of who ,ivas present at tho picture show. - Mr. Myers proceeded to go through the'! ■ list .of -aliens on which an agreement hnd been Teached. Regarding 16 aliens of the.' 50 named in the petition, 13 were agreed npon as being aliens, and regarding these ho further question was raised. Regarding the others, evidence would hnvp to ha called. "Mr. Myers then asked (he Court-, to order tlie partial scrutiny and the ekaminafion of the counterfoils to 'discover the number of counterfoils without roll numbers or other note to show that the corresponding ballot papers were given to soldiers ,or to. persons votins by declaration. This was not the full : scrutiny, but a much smaller matter. Ballot Papers and Numbers. , , The Chief Justice said that the ovi- / 'dejice of tho returning officer had been : that' the number of ballot papers in the boxes corresponded with the number cut ioflLthe books', of ballot papers. There -'wis fio suggestion that any ballot paper Was'isurreptitiously pnt there from outside; The charge was that some of the ballot papers had ho numbers on them. Mr.'Myers: And we can't tell whether these papers were given to real voters or not. ,;The Chief Justice: Tou have the actual ballot papers in the boxes. . You can't suggest that because a returning officer .•has. not struck a name off the roll, the ballot .paper is invalid. ■Mr. Myers: Oh, no! But When you have a number of voting papers with- . out any number, then nobody can tell .■whether they are valid votes or not. The. Chief. Justice: The returning officer says-, the number of voting papers he -. found in the boxes and tho'number ,of papers taken'!out of the books correspond. jMr'.' Myers: No, 6ir, that is not my jxiint at all. • -• • The Chief Justico: The full point you rjwko is that some ballot papers have Sfl numbets 'tin'the counterfoils.. • . .ijifr. Myers: I go further than that. Tlie mere fact that the number, of bal- • lftt papers corresponds witli the numbers of(blank papers, originally served out does not carry tho matter further. jXhe Chief Justice: What do you suggest could iiarry it further? Do you suggest that tho election is bad, because . the returning officer has not put numon some counterfoils? ■Sir.-Myers: Most certainly, .Your Honour. If the number is such that, either with or without a scrutiny, it would reduce, the majority to nothing The Chiftf "justice: Ydu would have us look who the votes were for in the case of ,all these counterfoils without* number? Mr. Myers.:. .No, but supposing I can, on grounds,' reduce Mr. Masters 1 to a majority of 30, and there are 40 or 50 papers which did not bear any numbers on the counterfoils -— Th e .Chief .Justice: And all votes to Mr; blasters •: • Mr. Mvers":'-'! don't care who they are for. Theso. .people must not be disfranchised,'and I say. there must be another'"election. . ■ THe'"Cliief- ; Justice: -If you upset the electiqn the«yote. is disfranchised.. Mr. Myers said that the papers could not-be-identified, and there ought to be another election. .... Tho Chief. Justice: But tho voters came in to the polling place, and they 1 would be identified when they got their pape^/,,./, . Mr. Myers.:. No,«they are not identified. ;>A man comes into the booth and Bays", 'My.-'hame is so and so-and-so," and ihe,-.is.jjiven his paper. Unless the number. is entered> on the counterfoil no one knows who asked for that ballot paper," i-and that difficulty is. intensified • because of the fact that there are in two booths alone-150 or 100 votes apparently in excess ol .tlie number of voters. The Chief Justice: That does not , touch,the . question of the counterfoils. • .You don't, say tlwt there are 150 counterfoils "'without marks, but that the Dumber of papers differs from tho num. fsis. atjuclcj>ff .the roll. , .Mr. Myers: That is true, but it intensifies the .difficulty. No one can say who iJfee'lTprt'spfiS/were who voted. * The' Chief Justice: It will mean if claim is right that if a returning .officer ! '6r""a" clerk chooses to refuse to ©lit"-numbers on the counterfoils, he can liavo a : new election whenever lie likes. ! Mr. Myers: If there are enough of ' <these'"pa'pers, Your Honour. ' - .' The Chief Justice: I don't think our law is so stupid as that. The question of whether a man is who he claims to be is one that should lie decided at ' the time. Of what nso are your scrutineers if this is not done? Mr.,.Myers.: There are not necessarily Bcnmtineers. Tho Chief Justice: Not nocessarily. Of eourse, if you choose to leave it all to Government officers.' -•Mr.' Myers: "What is the iise-of a law which says this shall be done, if it is not to be enforced? , The Chief Justice: The law does not provide that unless this is done there 6h«'l be a new election. Mr. Myers claimed that if he piwd irregularities it was for the respondent to show that it did not affect the flection. Ho wished to discover tho number of counterfoils without numbers. What tho effect of that might be no one could tell. If numbers were not entered on counterfoils, then in a close olpction impersonation might go on, and there would be nothing to help in detection; and proof of it. The omissions of tho deputy-returning officer in this ease prevented petitioners from carrying tho matter further, and finding out whether theie had been impersonation. Tho Chief Justice: And this looking won't toll you. Mr. Myers: But it will help us in this way. If there are only 10 or 20 ■ Buch votes—nnd I cannot reduce the majority on other grounds—then it will be no use to enrry tho matter furthci, but if there aio a large number then tho probable effect may be quite different. Sir John Flndlay's Reply. Sir John Findlay. in reply, said that bis learned friend had misconceived the position in which this case stood. Certain of -Mr. Myers's observations would liavo had much point if ho established that a number of persons who had no right to vote did vote, but Mr. Myers wanted a search of the counterfoils to discover those without numbers, and then lie was going to ask the Court to say that throe persons had not a right to vote. How would tho production of these counterfoils prove that n person ; who cast a vote had no riprht to vote? In openiwr, Mr. Myers had said that impersonation was not alleged. It was said that if tlie number of. persons who had no right to voto and]did vote exceeded .respondent's majority, then no doubt there would bo a scrutiny. Tho first/ thing petitioners had to show was that 'ii number of persons sufficient to overweigh respondent's majority, having no.right, to vote. did.vote. Then ft ere | would have to bo a scrutiny to discover | tow' these people voted. . Mr. Myers had | not established his. right to a scrutiny. | 'All that he had shown was that a young man acting as scrutineer said that he bad several unnumbered counterfoils, but
that he could not remember more than five. Tlris young man could not say whether llioso were foldiere or declaration votes. ■ On such flimsy Rrounds a request was made for a search of 7000 votea. Mr. Justice Chapman: It has been said that this search of the counterfoils will take about six hours. How does that burden you? It may bo a burden to somo officials, but why should it trouble you?
Sir John Pindlay: "I am stnnclinfr on my right unto- the 'Statute. _ My friend is asking for this qunsi-6crutiuv when ho has not established his right to the scrutiny." .Ho. went on to , .say that 110 provision was made .in the. law for a partial scrutiny of the counterfoils such as was being nske<l. The Court was being 'askedv to establish a dangerous precedent, which might in future be troublesome. . Mis lenrned friend was on n "fishing expedition" pure and simple. He had not In id the basis for his request. lie (Sir John l''indlay) conceded tlmt if Mr. Myers could, show that more persons fhan the number of respondent's majority voted without having the right to vote, then petitioners would be entitled to a scrutiny, but until Mr. Myers established this Iw was not entitled to it. A Scrutiny Allowed. The decision of Their Honours was reserved until after the luncheon adjournment, and then tlio decision was that the examination of the counterfoils by tile returning officer be allowed to discover the number of unnumbered counterfoils. ' The Chief Justice, in his judgment on the question, said that the decision must not be taken .fa mean that the Court agreed to reject any votes because of the absence of numbers. Either party would be allowed to have n representative present at the examination. Mr. Myers called evidence oil the quesv tion about tho legal position of aliens. Hector Baden Smith, of the staff of the Government Statistician's Office, produced records concerning certain persons alleged in- the petition to bo unnaturalised aliens. The papers produced were those required during the war for registration of aliens, and they concerned about a dozen aliens, German or Austrian Poles. Some of the persons were illiterate, and some'very old. As to the older people, there were of identification because all these families are very large, and in some cases it was not agreed that tho person challenged was the person named in the alien registration papers. As to descendants born outside New. Zealand, there was a question of whether the parents wero naturalised before the children obtained their majority. Other evidence was given by tther witnesses about other, persons of alien birth aud. origin. In one or two cases'of old people, it was apparent that they had Believed, wrongly, that they were naturalised, and in othfir cases it was proved that the person hadbeen born in New Zealand. When evidence was given, counsel for either side admitted or withdrew objections in particular cases. A question in another cn.se was whether a man had been naturalised before he was 21 years of a<re. Not all of the aliens were German or Polish; two were alleged, to-be American citizens. This concluded the ca.se for petitioners, with the exception of k some of "le alien cases held over for further information. Case for tho Respondent. Sir John Findlay, opening for tho respondent, said that the petition rested on three claims: Corrupt practices; the impeachment of individual votes; and, alleged irregularities in the election for which irregularities it was not alleged Sir. Masters wag to blame. The showing of pictures was alleged to he but to support the charge of- bribery there must bo proof of valuable consideration given to people to ■ induce them to vote. He would say that even if Mr. Masters gave the free pictures, this was not a corrupt practice and was not bribery. Prom • tho judgment in the Wairau case (whore the allegation was "treating"), be argued that to prove the charge thero must be proved, also, intention on the part of the giver to influence in this manner th» votes of the electors. In that case it was held that there was' no proof that "treating" was part of a scheme *o influence voters, and the Temark was made by the.. Court ill the judgment that electors in New Zealand were usually independent men, not likely tn be influenced by "treating-." Sir John Findlay argued that as the offence was a grdvo one there should be no possibility of innoconce before a man ought to be found guilty. With the gravity of the charge ho would contrast the trivial circumstances qn which the charge rested. The programme of pictures could not be nior# tban 3d. per head, for, taking the ordinary charge at Is., the programme ran as it was for about a quarter of ■ the time. He scouted the idea of tho people being influenced hy "threepence worth of pictures." If Mr. Masters bad "treatf'" the people to refreshments instead of to two and a half films, be would still have contended that Air. Master" could not bo found guilty of "treating." Mr. Myers had said that if free pictures w"r" to i-fl rolieited. then a enndidate might gain favour by giv'ng f'-ee pictures at every meeting, but that would bo plain evidence of a system for the purnose of influencing votes. Where refreshments or entertainment were merelv incidental to a meeting, the "treating" was not necessarily corrupt. Prom an English judgment lie, read a passage to tho ' effect that it was not necessarily wrong to give people' n glass of beer to induce them to come and hear a candidate. All depended on tho circumstances in which the "treating" was done. The authorities, counsel argued, were sulficient to justify the view that Air. Masters was not guilty of corruption. Assuming, even, that Mr. Masters gave the free pictures to entice people to come to hear him", in the circumstances Mr, Masters had to lake the picture theatre because Mr. Wiie had engaged tbe only Dther hall. Now. did ho accept the view ;>f Mr. Hine that the threepence worth of pictures would 'have attracted all the neople and made it impossible for Mr. Hine to hold a meeting in another hall on the sjime evening, people could have even seen all the pictures and then ; left to go to Mr. Hine's meeting. Counsel argued, also, that tho payment to the orchestra for the meeting on October 50, and for the free pictures, was not made for the purnose of promoting Mr. MastcTs's election. Tn any case, lie, would argue that the expenditure was wiithin .the permitted purposes. As to the allegations thnt persons not hnving tho right to vote had voted, Mr. MVcrs's 1 total bad been considerably reduced. T?egnrding the allegations of irregularities, he argued that the view that mere blundering on the part of poll clerks «honld upset elections, had never been taken by tho Courts or by tho legislature in this country. These irregularities occurred in ever.y election, and the • most common of all was failure' to put. tho roll numbers on ' tho counterfoil, a thing which, poll clerk would easily overlook in the rush hours of polling day. The roll number was entered on the counterfoil for identification purposes only. Experience showed tlmt it Was very seldom needed for such b purpose, ite .plea tlint an election should be up=et because a small number of counterfoils were unnumbered could not be sustained, nor was there anything in the attack on the. 23- paper* on account of • the lack of the official stamp mark upon them. Any question about these papers would be settled by the evidence of tile returning ofliecr that only papers issued by him were returned. As to the complaint about the number of votes cast being in excess of the nmnner of names struck off the roll, Ihe Legislature had foreseen or recognised the occurrence of this mistake, or failure by poll clerks to strike off a name when the voting paper was givon to an elector It was to get over this difficulty that tlic system of voting by declaration was introduced. So inevitable was it that names would not lie ruled out, and that people who had voted would be struck off the roll when compiled for the succeeding election, that this special provision was made to their cases. Counsel dealt generally with the charges. Never had n man fought an election with cleaner hands or less cause for suspicion than had Mr. Masters fought this olection, and never had an attempt been made to upset an election on flimsier grounds. With nil his experience and organisation, Mr. Hine had been unable- to discover any stronger grounds than theso. "The mountain had laboured and brought forth a ridiculous mouse." The evidence would be that the orchestra had been • arranged without Mr. Mastors's knowledge by one of his partisans. As tn the pictures, Mr. Masters would toll th# Court that iw
applied for the lihll without thotißht of paying for pictures mid music, but when this arrangement was nuulo ho agreed to nbiilo by it. The freo pictures special advertisement was not inserted by Mr. Masters, but by Mr. Ward, manager of tho picture theatre. There was no point in the payment by Mr. Masters for the snecial advortiseitient in the "Stratford Post," Numbers of accounts wero brought in by the secretary, and Mr. Masters wrote cheques for these amounts, not noticing carefully the several items. The advertisement was put in by Mr. Ward in the ordinary course of his worlc of controlling the theatre, and Mr. Ward expected to pay for it. Evidence was led on the names of petitioners' list of aliens,' and then o.n tho new list put in by respondent, hi the course of evidence one new class of case was discovered. There were several aliens who wero naturalised before the election, and it was contended for respondent that although these aliens were naturalised on the day of the election, they were not naturalised when 'they were registered, anil that their registration, and consequently their votes, were invalid. This contention was opposed by Mr. Myers. Respondent also" challenged tile votes of certain neonle on the cround that they were resident over the boundarios of the Stratford electorate.
The Court adjourned for the day
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19200317.2.63
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 147, 17 March 1920, Page 8
Word count
Tapeke kupu
3,075STRATFORD ELECTION Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 147, 17 March 1920, Page 8
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.