SATURDAY, APRIL 15, 1899.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Issue 47, 15 April 1899, Page 3

SATURDAY, APRIL 15, 1899.

On Thursday List Major Keddell, S M.» gave his decision on the petition asking him to set aside the recent poll on the proposal to adopt rating on unimproved value in the borough of "Waimite. His Woiship decided that he had no jmisdietion to set aside the poll on the grounds set forth m the petition, as these did not come -within the scope of the matters he is allowed to deal with under the Local Elections A^t. Tins point was one raised by the Magistrate himself and was not suggested by counsel who opposed the petitions. As the general powpva given to the Magistrate are very large, bfiag expressed in the words " any other iirpgularity occuring in the proceedings which, in the opinion of the S M., tended to defent the fairness of the election," it would hsue be^n quite competent for him to have said that it did come within his powers, and had he decided so, probably no objection or anpoal would h.ive bepn taken and he might with fair leason have contended that he had the power, seeing that no other remedy for such a difficulty is provided by the Act. In deciding against opoosmg counsel on another point of jurisdiction the Magistrate said the Act was intended to give a cheap and expeditious remedy for irregulauties in the conduct of local electio By his present decision he has taken away the easy remody and left none open to the ratepayer aggrieved except the expensive one of an appeal to the Supreme Court and which they are not likely to adopt. Till now we have refrained from convnenting on this matter as it was not desuable to doso while it was before the court. We may say at once that we think the Mayor erred in declaring the proposal submitted to the ratepayers, lost. Clause 6 of tbe Eating on Unimproved Value Act, 1896. says, " No such pioposal shall be deemed to be carried unless affirmed by a majority of the valid votes recorded and at least onethird of the ratepayers record their votes." The poll vas taken on March 10th and on the 18th of the wins month the Mayor declared the result of the poll as follows :—": — " No. of ratepayers on the roll, 301. No. of ratepayers who received voting papers, 101. Total of votes cxercisablo, 349. Votes for proposal, 100. Votes ng-uust proposal, 16. Inforn;nl votes, 2. The ■Returning Officer not having affirmed that one third of the' ratepa^eis on the roll recorded their, votes, I therefore declare the proposal rejected. " As a mn]oritv of the valid votes recorded were in favour of the proposal, the next point to be considered was " did at least one-third of the ratepayers record their votes ?" The least number of voters necessary to make an effective poll, 101. The returning officer holding the opinion that voters who recorded their votes informally should not be included in the necessary one-third was unable to affirm that one-third of the ratepayers had recorded their votes. But neither could he affirm that one-third had not recorded valid votes, for those two informal votes might have been cast one each by two persons entitled to record a plurality of votes, in which case the proposal would be carried. The returning officer had no legal means of determining the point, and his duty was simply to furnish the Mayor with the figures. It was, therefore, no justification of the Mayor's declaration of the result, to say that the returning officer had not affirmed that at least one-third of the ratepayers had recorded their votes. "The magistrate, in giving his decision, said the mayor wasan a quandary, which in fact substantiated the position taken up by the petitioners. The mayor is liable L to a heavy penalty if 'he wilfully neglects his duty in such matters, but he is not expected to do what is impossible, and in the circumstances ought not to have declared the proposal rejected. Considering the great disparity between the number of votes for and against the proposal, there was more reason for declaring the proposal carried than lost, and if the mayor felt bound to declare one way or other, we submit he should have declared the proposal carried, and laid the onus of proving the contrary on the wealthy opponents of the proposal. We consider a great wrong (quite inintentioually, we admit) has been done to the poorer ratepayers who for another three years must continue to bear not only their own share of the rates but also a considerable share of what should be borne by the owners of large properties. In our next issue we shall return to the subject, as we believe it can be shown that the proposal to adopt rating on unimproved value in the borough of "VVaiinate was carried and therefore simply because of the expense of carrying the matter to the Supreme Court the majority of the rateoavers must submit to a wrong.