THE RANGITATA LICENSING ELECTION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2649, 21 April 1894, Page 3

THE RANGITATA LICENSING ELECTION.

A dispute has arisen between the Ashburton County Council and Mr John McKeague, the Returning Officer who conducted the Eaugitata Licensing Election. The council has objected to pay the cost of the election on the ground that it was excessive, and Mr McKeague has sent the council a lawyer’s letter demanding payment within seven days. Information concerning the dispute has been supplied to us, but we cannot publish all of it as it would take up about three columns of space. However, the following resume of it will enable the public to understand the subject as well as if the whole had been published. The story is as follows : —On the 7th instant the council met, and declined to pass the account on the ground that it was excessive. The chairman, Mr H. Friodlander said that while the total cost of the Ashburton Election had been £Bl. 18s sd, or £5 Os per polling booth, tiiu cost of the Ivangitata clod ion was £IBO 4s od, or £8 per booth. Mr duhn Mcivoaguo’s explanation is chat on Mm 18th of Januarv last ho hold a consultation with the chairman and clerk of the council and the Ashburton llotiuv ing Officer, and it was thou agreed that returning officers having to travel 2o miles and upwards should be allowed two days’ pay. He made his estimates on this basis, allowing 7s Od personal expenses. On the estimates thus supplied the council applied to Government for £;ib(l to conduct Lho election, and made no objection to Mr McKcaguo’s estimates. The Government refused to pay this sum, and it was then the council began to study economy. When they expected Government to pay they did not study , costs. On February oth the clerk of the Qouucil wrote to Mr McKeague staling

that the council did not intend to recommend the Government to reduce the number of polling booths, and asked him to proceed with the election. To this Mr McKeague replied that he will conduct the election on the 21st of March. On the 6th of March Mr McKeague had an interview with Mr Friedlander with the view of conducting the election cheaply, the outcome of which was that Mr Friedlander wrote a letter to Mr McKeague containing the following instructions : Please observe the following, provided of eourse the instructions do not clash in the carrying out with efficiency the Act under which you will conduct the election: Pees for deputy returning officers to be £llos, including personal expenses, two days’ pay to be allowed when returning officer has to travel exceptionally long by road from his polling booths to principal booths, or vice versa, What is exceptionally long distances ” I must leave to your discretion. PoE clerks’ fee 10s 6d, and not to exceed 7s 6d for personal expenses. Poll clerks, I consider, need only be appointed at the Hinds, Tinwald. South Orari, Geraldine, Flemington, and Mount Somers. Returning officers and poll clerks to be appointed, if possible, from locality where they will act, which will help you to keep down expenses. Travelling expsnses not to exceed IPs. If exceptionally long distances by road 20s. Mr McKeague replied directing Mr Friedlander’s attention to clause 88, of the Electoral Act, 1893, by which the returning officer is required to appoint as many clerks as may be wanted, and that in face of this he had directed him to do away with clerks at sixteen polling booths, with the possible consequence of having the ballot boxes stuffed with worthless ballot papers, or the certain consequence of having the election upset by the deputy returning officer leaving the booth between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., when he must necessarily close the door. He asked for “ unconditional and absolute instructions” to do away with poll clerks at these sixteen booths that the council might be responsible if the election should be upset on these grounds, and one election petition now under trial is partly based on this very ground. He received the following reply : Ashburton County Council, March 12th, 1891. Sin, —I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the date (March 10th) as per margin, which has received careful consideration at my hands, and in reply to say that if you think that the validity of the election may be interfered with by the non-appointment of the sixteen polling clerks I am, under these circumstances, willing they should be appointed,—l have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servant, Hugo Friedlander, Chairman, J. McKeague, Esq., Returning Officer, Hinds. Under these circumstances Mr McKeague did not feel justified in not appointing poll clerks. He asked the council to give him absolutely instructions not to appoint them, so as to relieve himself of the responsibility of having the election rendered invalid. The council refused to relieve him of responsibility, so he had no other course open to him but to make the appointments. As regards economy, the council allowed Is 6d per day to be paid to returning officers over and above the amount allowed by Government at the general election. To secure economy Mr McKeague raised the distance a returning officer had to travel before he would be entitled to two days’ pay from 25 miles to 30 miles, and he considers, with counting the votes, this to be two good days’ work. On the basis of allowances agreed to by the county council Mr McKeague made out his estimates, and requested the chairman to supply him with money to conduct the election. The chairman replied complaining of the lavish fees allowed returning officers, and refused to supply the funds. When the election was over Mr McKeague made out a schedule giving full details of the expenditure, and this shows that the election cost £175, or £7 12s per booth. This included the expense of useless interviews with the chairman of the council as well as extra allowances made by the council to the returning officers beyond those Mr McKeague had originally fixed. Mr McKeague’s own personal expenses were only £1 4s 4d per booth, whereas the personal expenses of the Ashburton returning officer were £1 10s per booth. Mr McKeague makes out a strong indictment against the county council. It wanted to usurn +*• functions of the Govern rn«>- J - . • nrj • -wiC fIQQ the returning olb uer by attempting to override the electoral law. The council has not yet paid, but Mr McKeague is evidently a man who will stand very little nonsense, as he served the council with a lawyer’s letter to pay within seven days.