THE PELORUS ELECTION.

Marlborough Express, Volume IV, Issue 208, 18 December 1869, Page 4

THE PELORUS ELECTION.

The hearing of the writ against Mr. Douslin, obtained by Mr. Conolly, at the instance of Mr. Joshua Rutland, which should have taken place in banco, at Nelson, yesterday, has been postponed until thisday (Saturday), but we are now in possession of the extraordinary proceedings of the Returning Officer, upon what may be considered indisputable evidence. Mr. ¥m. Douslin puts in affidavits sworn to before A. J. Richmond, Esq. J.P., and S. L. Muller, Esq., R.M., to the following effect:—Mr. Douslin states that the election for two members of the Provincial Council for the Pelorus district took place on Nov. 11th, the polling places being at Havelock and Deep Creek respectively. Mr. W. Whitehorn, the Returning Officer, presiding at the former, and Mr. J. H. Smith, as his deputy, sitting at the latter place; and ultimately deponent was declared elected by a majority of one vote, but since the declaration he had been informed that three minors (or persons under 21 years old,) named Guillim, Smith, and Hutcheson, voted for him at Havelock. He was further informed by Mr. "Whitehorn that he received the votes of the three persoms named, believing them at the time to be minors,. but nevertheless believing them entitled to vote by reason of their holding Miners’ Rights, having been so advised by telegram from Mr. Conolly, of

Picton, whom he consulted on the subject. Mr. Douslin was from 6 p.m. on the 10th Nov, until 7 p.m. on the day of election at Deep Creek, 13 miles distant from Have lock, during which time the votes of the three minors were taken, of the circumstances attending which he was not aware till his return, or that they had voted at all. The election at both places was conducted irregularly, and contrary to the provisions of the Miners’ Representation Act, 1863. In his presence at the Deep Creek polling booth, James Morgan, holding a Miner’s Hight, No. 1975, dated 20th April, being more than sis months’ old, tendered his vote for him, which was refused by the Deputy lieturning Officer because his Miner’s Hight was not dated six months prior to October Ist, according to Section 3 of the Act of 1862, which section was repealed by the Act of 1863. The vote of Alfred Dillon and several others were also refused on the same grounds as Morgan; and the votes of at least fourteen others were refused, or they were deterred and virtually excluded from voting. Consequently deponent was advised that the election was illegal and invalid in consequence. Messrs. Mulvey, Dillon, Morgan, and several others wore fully entitled to vote, and had promised him their votes, which they tendered, but wore thus deterred or excluded from voting, and if they had been allowed to vote, Mr. Douslin would have had a larger majority, u. Win. Whitehorn, Resident Magistrate at HaveloMcTsayFhe was the Returning Officer for the Pelorus, and presided at the polling booth at Havelock on the 1 Ith November, and his deputy was Mr. J. H. Smith. In his conduct of the election he was guided by the Act of 1862, not being aware that Section 3 of that Act had been repealed by an Act of 1863; and instructed Smith to be guided by the same Act in like mannei’. He refused Mulvey’s vote, whose Bight was dated April 3, which he produced while tendering his vote. He was informed and believed that his deputy ( Smith ) likewise refused several votes in like manner. He received and recorded the votes of the three minors, believing they were entitled, having previously taken counsel’s opinion on the point, notwithstanding he was at the time under the impression that they were under age. John H. Smith says he was Deputy Beturning Officer at Deep Creek on Nov. 11th, and was instructed by Mr. Whitehorn to be guided by the provisions of the Act of 1862 entirely, in consequence of which he refused to take the votes of Morgan and others who tendered them, and had been holders of Miners’ Bights for more than six months, the grounds of his refusal being that they were not more than six months’ old on I st October, as provided by Section 3 of the Act of 1862, being at the time ignorant that such section had been repealed by the Act of 1863. # It will thus be seen that without the knowledge or cognizance of the candidate, who was 13 miles distant from the evening before the election until late on the following day, these three persons were allowed to give their votes for him, although Mr. Whitehorn, the Beturning Officer, knew they were minors, and previously consulted his solicitor on the subject, who advised him to receive them, that is, if his telegram was rightly understood. At Deep Creek, acting under the instructions of Mr. Whitehorn, his deputy acted in utter defiance of law, and prevented no less than 17 persons from voting, of whom some tendered their votes for Mr. Douslin, while others had promised him their votes. Two days afterwards, and after Mr. Whitehorn had declared Mr. Douslin elected, Mr. Butland, the defeated candidate, entered a protest against their having been received, and has since carried the matter into the Supreme Court, where he seeks, through Mr. Justice Eichmond, to displace Mr. Douslin, saddle him with all the costs of the proceedings—no trifling, sum—and place himself in the vacated, seat. How far this move will be successful, we may not now conjecture. Our contemporary the. Press has thought it necessary to take up and discuss our last week’s article at considerable length, but we regret to say that nearly the whole of his essay is occupied with a tirade against us because of a trifling printer’s error. Briefly, we used the words “ repealed Act ” instead of “repealed clause!” a circumstance which does not affect the question in the least. It acknowledges having made an error in quoting a repealed clause, and speaks of the Beturning Officer “having made a mistake similar to their own, ’ but has. not a word to say about the serious consequences of these mistakes. It says our “ sharp attack on the Beturning Officer for working under the wrong Act was uncalled for,” although this was the cause of all the mischief. The writer continues—- “ We have sufficient faith in Mr. Whitehorn to know that he would not do anything of the kind wilfully; and for this error we have to blame our Legislature for the piece-meal manner in which the laws of the country are put in

force. Were they to simplify the Acts by combining the original with the amended, instead of passing a separate Act to repeal a clause in another, it would greatly facilitate the working of them and save a deal of trouble and annoyance.”

—Perhaps he will tell us how he would accomplish this admirable substitute for studying the laws. We might amuse our readers by replying to the slightly personal remarks of the Press as to our “ state of mind, pertness, supposed infallibility, unbecoming conduct, and questionable opinions,” but these have no connection with the subject. What we stated as to the legality of the election is right, or it is wrong; and we leave our readers to judge the facts, as sworn to, for themselves. These shew thatthe person who had the conduct of the election did not know of the existence of the Act of 1863, although officially connected with the mining community as Warden and Resident Magistrate, and therefore was not the right person to fulfil the duties of returning officer, and whose want of experience led to the present embroglio. Lastly, we did not dispute the right of Mr. Rutland to raise any question he chose, without consulting us, but that does not place his acts above criticism. We never intimated that such a course was necessary, and the idea is therefore simply started by our friend for the purpose of contradicting it, and raising a cloud over the question.