WESTERN MAORI ELECTORATE

King Country Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 155, 13 May 1909, Page 5

WESTERN MAORI ELECTORATE

Hearing of Petition.

The boating of the petition of PejHrne Kketot,e against the rcutrn of llenarc Kaihau for the Western Maori eleeto* rate, v. as opened at Hamilton on Monday last before Judges Edwards and Cooper. The petition was brought on the grounds that certain irregularities occurred during the reAnt election that would render it invalid. The defences put forward was that the procedure Has carried out in accordance with the custom that has prevailed for years. Mr P. Earl, of Messrs Earl and Kent.

appeared on brhalf of the petitioner, and Mr C. J Parr, of Messrs Parr and Blomlicld, appeared for respondents. Mr A.Swarbrick was present on behalf of the returning officer.Mr Grace. The Court was crowded with Maoris from all parts of the electorate, while there was a good sprinkling from different portions of the Island. MrSwarbrick asked the ruling of the Bench as to whether, under section 191 of the Act, Mr Grace, the returning officer, was respondent ir. the petition.

! Their Honours ruled that as the Re- ! turning Officer's actions throughout the election had been complained of, he I was a respondent. j The chief irregularities complained ' of as set out in the petition were that I the polling places had not been pubI I«shed in the Maori Gazette on days prior to the day of polling; that a large number of polling papers were returned without the names of the candidates being written in; that the houses at which the polling should have taken place were not used for <tuch purpose and that other places were used in substitution; that the ( Returning Officer did not, as required by the Act, issue voting papers to each elector: and tbat no time had been appointed for the issuing of the voting papers.

The Legislation of 190$, dealing with the election of Maori rcprosenlas tives, said Mr Earl, was divided into four parts. The whole of the machinery for the election of such representatives was contained within the four walls of part 4. Other references to Maoris and representation could be found in Section 15, while several others could be found throughout the Act'. There was a distinct provision that the provisions relating to ordinary European representatives should not apply to Maoris. As wan usual in the Legislature dealing with Maoris the whole thing was of a very haphazard and slipshod nature. Section 185 was the one that set out the regulations under which the election of Maori members should W conducted. The section relating to the publishing of the names of the polling booths distinctly stated that they must be published for at least eight days before the date of polling. Counsel laid stress on the wpni "for" which he contended meant that names of the p!ac« s must be published on eight distinct dates. He admitted that the polling places hp;! been published oner, on October 51, but encf only. Under subsection 6. of section ]!»-"». it was stated that the I'oll demanded that the Returning Officer should immediately perform certain duties, which Mr Grace did not do. He had not appointed a time or times for the issuing of the voting papers, and in this alone the Act was flagrantly transgressed. It could not be said, therefore, that the election had been carried (*ut according to the Statue. Subsection M stated that before giving a voting paper a Returning Officer can, or if required by any scrutineer shall put to the elector certain questions mentioned therein. At many of the booths, however, no scrutineers were appointed, and all the deputy returning officers did when the poll had closed was to send a wire to the Re* turning Officer of how many votes were given for the various candidates. Judge Cooper: 1 take it that your contention is that the presence of the scrutineers was to maintain secrecy.

Mr Ear): Yes, that is my contention.

His Honour: But there is a vast difference between the declaration of a Maori Returning Officer and that of an European Officer. Mr Earl said that altogether 110 voting papers were returned without the names of the candidates being filled in, as the voters in most cases had not been afforded an opportunity of filling tftem in. The deputy officers, especially the one at the booth where so many papers had been returned without the candidates' names, seemed to have done nothing that was valid, but did everything that was invalid. There was no particular regulation stating that a notice should be placed on a polling booth, so that all the Native electors had to relyupon was the notice in the Gazette. This, however, the majority of them had not had au opportunity of seeing. At Waingaro the polling was arranged to take place at the Maori meeting house, but instead it was altered to the schoolhou<<c,without notice. Then another booth wan arranged at Pcpcnc Eketone's house; it seemed rather like comic opera, remarked Mr Earl, that a candidate's house should be constituted a polling booth, but it was perhaps only in keeping with other humorous features of the whole legislature relating to Maoris. Here the voting was carried on a mile away. At WaiietyiM the meeting house ifas appointed, and it wa u iomeWhatstartling statement to have to make, said counsel, but the polling not only did not take place here but in no building whatever were the votes recorded; they were received some miles further on, on the open road. The most serious transgression to his, the counsel's, taint} was that the Returning Officer did not issue voting papers at each of the polling booths.

Judge Edwards asked how many polling places th?re were in * the electorate wqa wid there were 126. Judge Cooper said it would be physically impossible for the Returning Officer to be at all the polling places pt the same time. His Honour asked bow much the election bad cost, and was Informed that £IOOO would not cover tbe expense. Mr Earl said the section of tbe Act dealing with Maori elections was about equal in lucidity to tbe Land Bill, and the drafter, while probably remarking

| to htirself that anything would do for ■ the Maoris had pitchforked anything i into it. It was of such a nature that i nobody but the Maoris would tolerate f it. If their Honours considered the intenticn of the statute was to provide for «ecrccy at the polling booth even in a modified form, then by the methods used throughout IbH election the Act ■ had been seriously transgressed. On the other band, if their Honours ruled that the statue did not contemplate any ! kind of ballot, then no great harm ! could ensue by the Natives entering ! the polling places in group?, except f from coercion, undue influence, or per- ! suasion. Counsel submitted that if he j r was able to prove a part of what lie I j had stated, but he hoped to prove it ] t all, that the election was not conducted j ' substantially according to the prinri- * pies of the Statute. If their Hon--1 ours ruled that the substance of the i petition was such as to prove the clcc- , tion invalid well and good, but on the ■ i other hand if they thought the irregu- < larities insufficient to destroy the elee- j tion as an election then it would be ■ for the other side to show that these irregularities were such as could not have any possible effect on the result of the poll. In proving that the election was valid they must show that in substance it was conducted according to the principle of the Statute and par- | ticularly as regarded the vital point of ' giving ample facilities so that everyone entitled to a vote should have a ! full free right to exercise his privi- ; lege. If the law had been departed from.then undoubtedly the election was invalid, and where there was no election there was no result. If, however, the transgressions, although serious, did not take the election out of the category of the principle of the . Act, it was then for the other side to show that the irregularities could not by any possibility have afTected the \ result of the election. The onus was j then upon the respondents and not the 1 petitioner, and it would be most diffi- : cult under any circumstances for their j Honours to decide to what extent the j irregularities, as pointed out, could or ! could not have affected the result of j the election. The difference made by ] them could not be measured by voters.

A number of witnesses wer« examined including Mr Grace, the returning officer, and a number of the deputy officers, and Counsel was beard on both sides. The enquiry was adjourned on Wednesday morning, the presiding judges intimating that their decision would be delivered on Saturday at Auckland.