The Globe. MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1878.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1342, 3 June 1878, Page 2

The Globe. MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1878.

We referred on Saturday last to tho probability of tho election for City Auditors taking place that day being declared invalid. Tho ground upon which this assumption was based was that tho Returning Officer had unwittingly infringed the 39th clause of the Municipal Corporations Act, in which it is provided that as in tho case of tho election of Mayor, cumulative voting should not apply. For some time however Mr Loo issued papers on tho basis of cumulative votes. The question then arose, how wag tho defect to be cured, and a very general impression prevailed that the

election would have to take place again. On a more careful examination of tho wholo circumstances, we are inclined to bolievo that tho election is not a valid one. Tho method of voting under tho Act is that to each voter a paper or papers aro issued with his number on the burgess roll marked upon tho turned down corner. Now in giving cumulative votes, of course the object of the voter is to give tho greatest number of votes to the candidate or candidates ho selects. Honce all his papers would contain tho same names. Tho Returning Officer on Saturday, in going through tho papers at tho last when the voting was concluded adopted the following plan to discover —aud according to his idea rectify—the mistake in tho papers which had been given in cumulative voting. Wo will take a number, say No. 462, tho voter to whom it belongs being entitled to four votes under tho cumulative voting. Of course, as we havo already pointed out, all his papers would contain the names of the same candidate or candidates uncancelled. The Returning Officer then, in going through tho ballot papers, discovers that No. 462 has four papers in tho box. Three of these ho removed, allowing the ono vote to which the burgess was entitled by law to pass. In this way, it is contondod, no harm could bo done to any of tho candidates, as the result of the election would not bo influenced in any way. Tho fifth sub-section of section 50 of tho Regulation of Local Elections Act provides, amongst other reasons, that an olection shall be void if " any voting paper was takon out of a ballot-box otherwise than as provided by this Act so as to affect tho result of the election." Tho wholo gist of the sub-section lies in the last few words, and it is contended that, as tho action of the Returning Officer, which wo havo described, was not such as to affect tho result of tho olection, it is valid. But there is a point which, it seems to us, this reply does not epiito answer. Tho Returning Officer has destroyed certain papers which have been recorded as votes, and the question arises, was ho legally entitled to remove and destroy any voting papers so given during tho course of an election ? Clause 36 of the Regulation of Local Elections Act is very explicit as to tho manner of dealing with voting papers at the close of the poll. It says —"Immediately after tho close of the poll tho Returning Officer and each Deputy-Returning Officer shall seal up all Hie voting papers [the italics aro ours] used at his booth, &c." The next clause provides that tho packet so sealed up shall bo transmitted to the clerk of the Resident Magistrate's Court nearest to tho polling-booth, to be kept for six months. Now, in the case referred to, all the voting papers were not sealed up as directed, because a number of them were destroyed by tho Returning Officor. Granted that tho result of tho election lias not been affected by the action taken, it becomes a matter for consideration whether tho validity of the proceedings is not open to bo epiestionod. Tho section of tho Act we have quoted is plain, and it is equally plain that the Returning Officer, by removing certain papers, was not in a position to comply with it, inasmuch as the voting papers sealed by him did not represent all used at the election. In calling attention to this point we do so with no intention of cavilling or finding fault with the Returning Officer. The mistake was to be regretted, and was the result of pure accident. But in dealing with public matters it is essential that every point of objection which can be taken should be fairly argued out, so that it may be seen whether or not there is anything in it. So far as a common sense reading of the clause we have quoted goes, it seems clear that tho law requires all papers used at tho election without any reservation to be sealed up and dealt with as directed. This being so, we incline to the opinion that the proper course to havo takon when tho mistake was discovered would have been tq have declared the election so far as it had proceeded, invalid, and commenced tie novo. There could then bo not a shadow of a doubt raised as to tho legality of tho proceedings. Now wo think that tliero is a possibility under tho clause referred to of some exception being taken. At any rate the matter is worth considering by those concornod.