REVISION COURT, REEFTON.

Inangahua Times, Volume IX, Issue 1416, 20 June 1884, Page 2

REVISION COURT, REEFTON.

(Before W. H. Reveia, Esq , R.M.) Tuesday, June 17th, 1884. objections to county roll. Archibald . Moor a ratepayer, applied for the removal from the County roll of the names of J. J. Morris, Robert Kyiey, P. Walsh, senr, P. Walsh, junr, and others, on the ground that such persons had been improperly entered thereon. Mr Menteath appeared for the objector, and Mr Lynch appeared to defend the roll. . Mr Menteath in opening the case said i the objection was a dual one, being based partly upon legal grounds and partly upon fact. He purposed to deal with the legal aspect of the objection first, and as, if upheld, it would involve serious consequences, he would ask the Bench to bear with him while he placed the case fully before the ■ ourt. Hia first contention would be that the whole spirit of the Counties Act was in favor of cumulative voting. In proportion to the amount which a ratepayer contributed to local taxation he should exercise a voting power in its expenditure. This was no doubt the real spirit nf the Act, and in support of this view he cited section 47 which provided tbat any person who felt aggrieved by reason of the " number " of votes allotted to him boing greater or fewer than he was entitled to, might object, &c. Again in section 48 where power is conferred to alter the " number " of votes. Again in section 42 where the clerk is authorised to enter the " number " of votes. There were many other sections pointing conclusively to the fact that it was intended that every ratepayer should possess a voting power proportunate to the rates paid by him. This was further borne out by the voting scale which the Act itself contained. This scale appeared in the Act of 1876 in section 41 and according to it the holder of a miners right was entitled to one vote. By a strange circumstance, however, that very section containing the scale had been expressly repealed by section 26 of the Amended Counties Act of 1883, and consequently the miners right qualification was expunged from the Act. There could be no doubt whatever about this because a portion of the repealed section had been re-enacted, the whole of it in fact, except the particular portion giving ?>ne vote to a miners right. Tlie scale, so far as it affected the miners right qualification, had been Bwept completely away, and his contention was that as the Act contained nothing in reference to the number of votes to be allotted to the holder of a miners right, neither the clerk of Council nor even the Revision Court could arbitrarily make a scale to supply the defect of the Act. He argued that for all the Act contained to the contrary the Clerk might have given 20 votes to the holder .of a miners right as one. Section 10 of the Act of 1883 furnished a scale to replace the repealed one, and in that not a word was said about miners rights having any vote whatever. It merely referred to voting upon a property qualification, There was no doubt a difficulty, because iii subsequent sections reference is made to voting upon- miners right qualification, and from this it might be contended by the other side that it was intended that holders of miners rights should exercise a vote. But there was no way of apportioning the number of votes to each person . otherwise than by the scale provided in the Act, and as that scale made .no reference whatever to the miner's right, he held that it was beyond the function of the' clerk or anybody else to supply the omission. The Act in this respect was void on the ground of iudiriniteness. It might be that it was simply a case of omission, but he was rather inclined to think that when dealing with the scale in the Act of 1876 the Legislature realised the great difficulty and anomaly which presented itself, and l'ecognising the grrmsness of the abuse which might be" perpetrated in connection with the miner's right (| unlit* cation, determined to close the door against it, by purposely striking out the miners right qualification altogether. Thia was tho view he took of I

the case, and he would just instance a case to the Court to show the magnitude of the abuse which had beon actually attempted in the liiv.sent installed. VVe will suppose a ratepayer iv the Inangahua County who is assessed at LLO 0. He pays annually to the . County L6ss in rates upon his property, or in three years LlB 15s. Now, on the last day of December preceding the County elections a bogus niiner who does not possess a stick of property in the County, who has probably not been many weeks in the district, pays Ll for a miner's right, aud by virtue of that outlay of 2 /- walks into the polling booth on the election day and exercises the same voting power as the substantial property holder who has contributed LlB 15a to local taxation. Could a more glaring injustice ; a more iniquitous abuse of the rights of citizenship be conceived than thi* ? He ventured to say that such a monstrous state of things did not exist in any other country in the world. But bad and all aa this undoubtedly was, it did not bare the full exteut of the eyil of the present case. He would be prepared to show that in numerous instances the persons who had been placed on the roll and allotted a vote by virtue of the miners right qualification had never authorised anyone to take out miners rights for them ; had never paid for the miners rights so taken out and , knew nothing whatever about them. Further than this he should bo able to prove that the rights were never issued to the persons whose names had been used, but that the rights had been taken out by a servant of the County Council, a batch of sixty having been so taken out by the individual in question on the last day upon which they could be made available for the forthcoming County elections. | Here was an abuse the like of which had i hardly evef been heard of. A pure manufacture of County votes at the rate of 20/- each. The thing was positively ludicrous from its very audacity, and well might there be fear for a system of local government which made such a state of things possi le. To sum up however, upon the log-il point he would recapitulate. The Counties Act and all its amendments- pointed clearly to the principle of voting hy scale ; that the Act of 1876 provided the scale, in which one vote was allotted to the holder of a miners right ; that the Act of 1883 repealed such scale, and in the re-enacted scale omitted all reference to miners rights. Upon these grounds he submitted that there being no scale in' the Act regulating; the number of votes to be allotted to the holder of a miners right, that qualification was swept away, and he would ask the Court to sriko off all the miners rightvoters from the roll. He would ask the Court for a distiuct ruling . upon this point.bjfore proceeding. Mr Lynch said he should'profer to hear the whole ground of objection before replying. Mr Menteath said he had reason to believe that some of the t witnesses he intended to call were hostile, and for this reason he did not wish to show his hand just at present. His Worship said-he would prefer to hear the full ground of objection. It would be embarrassing perhaps to divide | the ground of objection. Mr Lynch said it would certainly be the best course for the Court to 'hear''* the whole objection. For himself he intended as soon as hib learned friend had finished his address to ask the Court to dismiss -the objection at once, without taking any evidence whatever. Mr Menteath said he could quite understand the anxiety tif the other side to burke any inquiry into the proceedings, but before he (Mr Menteath) finished he would Bhow quite sufficient reasons why tho Court should hear the whole of the evidence. f At this stage of the proceedings the witnesses subpoenaed for the objection were ordered out of Court. Mr Menteath said he would now open the facts which were briefly as follows : — On the 31st December, 1883,— the last day upon which miner's rights could be taken out to be available for the approaching County Elections— J. G. Heslop, who amongst a number of other County appointments, holds the position of Miner's Right Inspector, called at the Warden's Office and took out and paid for fiftyseven miner's rights : during the same month no less than one hundred and ten miner's rights had been taken out, but on the very last day of the year 57 were taken out by Heslop in one batch. Mr Lynch said this raised the point to which he took issue upon. What Mr Heslop did had nothing whatever to do with the objection before the ourfc. liewould certainly oppose this matter being further gone into. Mr Menteath said this was just what he expected his learned friend would do, but the Court would see at once that the j point raised was only in keeping with the whole disgraceful proceeding. His Worship said he had not come to anything yet, but he should certainly hear. everything bearing upon the manner in which the dames of persons had been placed on the roll. Mr Lynch would then Bubmit that the Court had no power to go behind the roll as presented by the Clerk. The names were on the roll and the Court could not go into evidence as to how they were placed there. Mr Menteath replied that this was to question the jurisdiction of the ourt. If the Court had no power to inquire into the compilation of the roll its functions were a nullity. The contention was absurd. His Worship ruled that he had power to inquire fully into all matters affecting any disputed vote. Mr Menteath said the whole issue to be tried was" whether the perons complained against were properly on the roll. He would show they wore not, but that they were placed there simply to supply voting strength for the ruling faction in the Council * that these persons never authorised anybody to take out the rights and it was dono by Heslop entirely on his own responsibility, Heslop himself providing the money. The evidence would show that he (HeBlop) went into the< Warden's Office with a list of names covering several sheets of paper ; that he took out a right for each, and paid down L57 in cash ; that he remained in the office up. to the In «ur of closing, and the closing of the olfiee that day was the closing of the roll. Under the Counties Act it was provided that the Warden's Clerk should furnish the Council with a list of all persons to whom miner's rights had been issued up to the 31st December. Now in the present case the miner's rights had been issued to J. G. Heslop, and not to the persons named therein, and he would ask the Court whether this of itself was not a sufficient ground for setting them aside for voting purposes. His Worship did not quite see that persons should be compelled to apply personally for miner's rights. As a

matter-of-fact country storekeepers very: j often obtained miner's rights for parties dealing with them. ' Mr Menteath held that the cases were totally different. Storekeepers and others might take out miner's rights for miners honafide engaged in mining, but in such cases there was the previous authority so to do from the niiner himself, and the payment by the latter of the fee. This, however, was a batch of miner's rights taken out by a County official— -not for persons engaged in bona fide miuing, but for farmers, shoemakers, carpeuters, in fact persons who were not miners at all. More than this, however, the persons themselves had never authorised then* names to be so used, and had not paid the money. They were n«>t miner's rights at all, they were simply voting scrip, purchased at the rate of 20/- each to stuff the roll. It would be seen that this outlay of L57 purchased a voting power equal to that possessed by ratepayers owning property to the value of £57,000, and who paid in three years no less a sum than £1,068 15s in local taxation. These were figures which well might arrest attention to the enormity of the iujustice'which it had been sought to perpetrate upon the legitimate ratepayers of! the County, and yet the other side were here today to uphold such a proceeding. He questioned very much the whole proceeding did not come within the definition of bribei^tond corruption as set forth in the Local Elections Act. By sub-section 4of that Act, it was made a misdemeanour for any person to present to the Returning Officer any right not issued to him " with intent to vote thereon." His Worship said whatever there might be iv the contention it did not arise at present. That was a question which- might arise after an election, but not before. Mr Menteath. Very well. He would not go further at present with the point. = It might be contended that although the persons had not autho rised Heslop to take out the rights they had .subsequently made the act their own by ratifying it. But there was fortunately a very sound legal obstruction to such a course. Under jthe Counties Act, miuer's rights, to enable persons to vote .must have .been issued to them not later than the 81st of December of last year. He would show that-Heslop was in the Warden's Office up to the hour of closing on the ,31st December, so that if his action had been ratified by the persons whose names had- been v c ', tbe ratification had taken place subsequently. Now he would cite.- numberless- authorities tOipfove th.atv*ratificatian, to.be. effec tual, should have, taken place within the period during which the persons themselves might have taken out the rights. There could therefore have been no legal ratification of the act after the office closed on the 31st December, for. if there could, its effect would be to extend the time beyond that stipulated in the Act. [Authorities here cited]. Further than this, Heslop was placed in a.fidneiary position by the Council, and holding a position of trnst he had no right to obtain votes in this manner for the party who put him in that position. He was abusing the trust reposed iv him, and if his act was illegal it could not be ratified at any time. If, however, the evidence came out as he expected it would, it would show something stronger than a breach of faith. Heslop did not receive the money from the persons whose names he improperly used, but in fact made them a present of £1 each — He would repeat, that if the evidence was what he expected Heslop's act* were incapable of ratification, and if there was np consent befcweeu the persons and himself, and acting without authority, the whole proceeding was void, and not one of those persons were on the roll. These Were briefly the facts of the case, and he should now proceed to prove them in evidence. Mr Lynch contended that no sufficient "grounds had been shown for the interference of the Court. ' He argued that reference to the miner's fight vote in the Act, even m spjje of the repeal of the scale, was quite sufficient I to indicate that it was intended that holders thereof should have one vote, and the scale was therefore unnecessary. • -- Mr Menteath said- the Act only provided that the-" holders'- iJf miner's rights should vote as "hereinafter provided," and yet there was no such provision iv any subsequent part of the Act. There was no " hereinafter provided " section. The object of the Legislature was evidently to sweep away the miner's right vote altogether. j'Tfawy'HP doubt foresaw thatit would be opening the door to a, scandalous violation of the civil rights of a community to allow miners rights holders to vote. What was the case here ? There were 721 voters in the whole County and 257, or rather more than one third of the total number claimed to vote by virtue of the miners right. lii the Reefton Riding 80 persons were on the roll for miner's rights when as a matter of fact there was not one fourth of that number engaged in mining. The other side desired to burk, all inquiry on this delicate subject and even went so far as to argue that the Court .must accept as correct the roll as presented. He says tbat to go behind the roll would only open up trouble and annoyance. What really Hid lead to trouble aud annoyance was this nefarious attempt to stuff the roll 'with miners fights; This is what led to all the trouble, and annoyance. He was sorry that he should be unable to expose the full extent ol this tampering with the liberties and rights of legitimate ratepayers, owing to the fact tint those whose names had been used belonged to the faction in the Council who were determined to foist their services upon the public for another three years. Thus J. J. Morris was now iv the employ of I

i the Welcome Company, and the wit- . nesses came forward reluctantly, j However he had now laid both the law and facts before the Court upon j which he felied and relied confidently that his Contention would be upheld, Mr Lynch having replied to the legal points. His Worship ruled that although the Act was in some respects defective it was contemplated that miners right holders should vote, and held therefore that the clerk was bound to accept the list of miner's rights furnished by the Clerk of the Warden's Court, and enter the names on the roll. Upon the other point, however, he would hear the evidence. John James Morris : I am a miner and live in Reefton although I work at Boatman's ; I have a miners right ; it was taken out on the 31st December. I did not take out the miners right myself. [The witness was then asked whether he had authorised any person to take it out for him, and hesitated in answering, finally he asked His Worship whether he was compelled to answer the question, and was told that he must.] I did not authorise any person to take out the miners right for me ; the miners right was not given to me on the 31st December ; it was given to me abput a couple of mouths ago ; I have not paid £1 for the miners right ; I am not working an alluvial claim ; it was not Heslop who gave me the miners right : I got it by post ; don't know who sent it to me j there was no letter accompanying it ; swear that I do not know the handwriting on the envelope ; it came from Reefton ; did not inquire who sent it to me ; have an idea who sent it to me but don't know whether it was Mr Han-old, County Clerk, who sent it ; have not paid anybody for it. By Mr Lynch : That is my name on the roll and I claim a vote by virtue of the miners right. Geo. Willis : lam the bailiff of the Magistrate's Court," Reefton, and assist in the Warden's oflice ; I remember sixty miner's rights being taken out on the 315., December ; the miners right produced is one of them ; it is in my handwriting.; it was applied for by John G. Heslop ; he came to the office by himself ; the office hours are from 10 to 12 on Saturdays; the 31st December was a Saturday ; it was nearly 1 o'clock when we finished writing out the miners rights for Heslop ; he came soon after 10 a. m. By Mr Lynch : Did not inform any- . body that 'GO miners rights had been .taken out on the 31st December. Mr Menteath said this was all the evidence he would call. An endeavour had been made to serve a subpoena upon Heslop, but the service could not be effected, Heslop having left the town ou a journey. Mr Lynch': submitted that it was the duty of Heslop to take ont miner's rights for persons requiring them. • His Worship : I don't go so far as that; It is his duty to see that all bona fide miners hold rights, but he seems to look after Chinamen only, allowing Europeans to escape. Mr Lynch put it that there was nothing illegal in the course adopted by Heslop, however reprehensible it might be. It was well known that some people, whether from an excess i of interest they took in elections, or from party feeling, or other motives would do the best they could to strengthen their own side, and although this might be mistaken zeal, and even reprehensible on public grouuds, there was nothing illegal iv it, and as long as it was not illegal these kind of things would be done all the world over. These miner's rights had been taken out and paid for, and there was no questioning the fact that each of th e se miner's rights conferred upon the p t rson whose name was mentioned in i the full privileges ordinarily conferred by such rights, and as those privileges were indivisible the right to vote could not be witheld. His Worship summed up, pointing 1 out that the miners rights having been issued by the Receiver of Goldfields Revenue within the time specified by the Act, he was hound to include them in his list to the Clerk of the Council, and the latter was bound to place such names upon the roll. As to the fact that the miners rights had been taken out by a servant of the Council and been paid for by him, that of itself did a&t constitute a ground for strik■irtg^lßMjplff. The rights had been iasueji SaP^'liie Warden's Office, and .the trf_itrs^ % which they had been obtaine_; _fir tlOt destroy the privileges they coni^^^ so far as compiling the roll was concerned. In this case the holder admits that he never authorised Heslop to take out the right, and never paid for it, but the right being :in existence he now claims a vote under it, and I cannot see how it can be rt. fused." The objection must therefore be dismissed. . Mr Lynch applied for costs, but His Worship refused the application.