WAIRAU ELECTION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1096, 20 January 1912, Page 3

WAIRAU ELECTION.

PETITION AGAINST MR M’CALEUM’S RETURN.

Blenheim, Jan. 18

In accordance with the Acts, the petitioners against Mr M’Callum’s election for Wairau advertise the full text ot the grounds of the petition in the Express to-night. The petition is very lengthy, comprising 27 clauses. Summarised, the grounds ofproceedings are the following allegations : That Mr M’Callum was guilty of bribery in treating, using undue influence, intimidation of electors, and other corrupt illegal practices, whereby an honest, pure, and fair election was not held. Therefore it should be declared void.

That after a meeting of electors at Grovetown, Mr M’Callum announced that his chairman of committee would “shout,” that they proceeded to a hotel, where Mr M’Callum addressed the electors and supplied them with drink and entertainment, paid for directly or by an agent. ThalatPicton, Havelock, Marl-borough-town, Ckaramio, Seddon and Mirza, Mr M’Callum provided meat, drink, and intoxicating liquors to a large number of electors, for the purpose of influencing their votes. That at Grove Road, Blenheim, there was a polling place at the grain store of Mr M’Callum’s brother, where large quantities of liquor were supplied to the electors, whereto Mr M’Callum was accessory.

That large quantities of intoxicating liquor were supplied to the electors at Seddon ; that the agent of Mr M'Galium there importuned the electors to vote for Mr M’Callum, and supplied them with liquor supplied by Mr M’Callum. That a member of Mr M’Callum’s Committee gave the electors at Mirza money to buy liquor prior to the second ballot. ■ That Mr M’Callum made contracts for payment tor the conveyance of electors to and from the polling booths at the elections. That the secretary of Mr M’Callum’s committee was seen to instruct the drivers of such conveyances to convey the electors to the poll to vote for Mr M’Callum. That a prominent member of Mr M’Callum’s committee stood at the principal booth, accosting the electors and urging them to vote for Mr M’Callum, thus intimidating electors. , That the same thing occurred at another polling place. That Mr M’Callum was guilty of a corrupt practice at the first ballot, inasmuch as his total expenses exceeded and in the second- ballot his total expenses exceeded That Mr M’Callum promised. nnrl that the chairman of committees offered, money to a canvasser to procure votes ; that the promised money was paid alter the election.

Clauses are also inserted alleging that bets were made by members of Mr M’Callunfs committee and prominent supporters, thereby influencing the votes of electors.

Mr M’Callum is at present in Wellington, and, when seen by a JNew Zealand Times reporter, seemed to treat the matter very lightly. “Against me personally,” he said, “there cannot possibly be any accusation of guilt or of any attempt whatever to commit a breach of the Act in regard to corrupt practices.” He had been concerned in elections right away back to the days of the Stout- • Vogel Ministry, which he supported, and he could say that the 191 1 election, so-far as he was concerned; was one of the cleanest on record. He had not attempted to influence anybody, either by direct gifts or by gifts to sports clubs or otherwise lor at least six mqnths prior to the election. He. was quite sure, too, that his committee had carried out his instructions, which were, briefly, that no vote that was not freely ' and

voluntarily given should be asked for.

He was aware that there had been reports circulated round the district to the effect that he had '‘floated in on beer,” but he assured the reporter that, from the beginning of the campaign, both he and his committeemen refused to have anything to do with extremists, either on the liquor side or on the prohibition side. He stood for the middle party of moderates, and would have nothing to do with either extreme section.

He courted the fullest inquiry into the charges alleged in the petition ; and, now that the matter had gone so far as it had, would insist upon the petition being fully gone into before two Supreme Court judges, so that the character which he had gained during a forty-eight years’ residence in Marlborough should be fully justified.

The only thing that appeared to trouble him was that his personal friends outside Marlborough might think that he had been guilty of something wrong, and that, if credence were given to the charges that had been circulated against him throughout the district in a most industrious fashion, his friends in the temperance or extreme prohibition 'party might be induced to believe that their confidence in him, as a fair-minded representative, was misplaced.