The Gazette 1908-9

[DEC., 1908

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

68

said to have been given in a voting paper which set forth the fact that one candidate was a member of the outgoing Council, that he had attended its meetings twenty-one times, and that he was proposed and seconded by two of its most prominent members, but that another candidate was not a member of the outgoing Council, had not attended any of its meetings, and was only proposed and seconded by two of the ordinary members of the Society ? Surely it would be untruthful to say that this informatiou had no effect upon voters. He had no objection to the information being forthcoming: indeed, he thought that the attendances of the, members should be posted up in the Incorporated Law Society's Hall for at least seven days prior to the election ; but he did say that in every election the law presumed that at the poll every voter should be absolutely free and unfettered, and that all influences which might—legitimately or otherwise—have been brought to bear upon him prior to the election to vote for a particular candidate should cease. He said that upon purely constitutional grounds it was essential that the voting paper of the Society should be absolutely in accord ance with the Ballot Act, which was the only Act regulating such matters, and it regulated it in every detail. j*^- MR. P. ]. BRADY said that while he seconded the motion he might say it was his privilege for the last two years to be associated with eight others in scrutinising the votes, and he thought it would be found the scrutiny was conducted, as it should be, with the greatest regularity and propriety, and that it was absolutely impossible that any infringement of the rules or of the rights of the profession would be allowed. As he understood it, Mr. Rooney had no objection to the information being given, but he objected to it being given on the ballot paper. Objection had been taken to the motion on the ground that if the information were not given the members would not attend at all (hear, hear). MR. BYRNE said it would be perfectly useless to post up the information downstairs, as the voters who had to vote by ballot were all over Ireland. He thought every elector lad a right to have before him the names of ;he candidates and the number of times they lad attended to their duties, because it would se a monstrous thing if a man could be their representative and not attend without anyone mowing it (hear, hear). There was no other vay of supplying the information, save on a

associations, and other similar bodies was not the subject of definite legislative enactment but the only rules regulating the ballot were those laid down in the first part of the First Schedule to the Act, and if the system of voting by ballot be adopted—as it had been in theii Society—there was, he submitted, an impliec intention that the procedure should be accord ing to the only method regulated by statute. In any event, no matter what private associa tions of laymen might do, it certainly woulc be unwise for the Society of the solicitors-ol Ireland to allege the contrary. According to the form in the Schedule to the Act the infor mation to be given to voters by the ballot paper was (i) the number of candidates; (2) the surname and Christian name of the candidates; (3) the private residence of the candidates; and nothing else. Let him apply the rules to the election of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society. First—Did the persons employed in taking the poll act with the utmost im partiality ? and secondly, did the voting paper contain only necessary information ? It would, of course, be understood that he used the word " impartial " in the broadest sense, and not in any way as impugning the good faith of those persons, of which he had not .the smallest doubt. He took it that the Secretary was the Returning Officer, and was the' person re sponsible for the persons employed in taking the poll. There could be no doubt that the Returning Officer was the proper person to provide the ballot papers. Could he be said to act impartially if he supplied the voters with more information about one candidate than another? For instance, let them take the pre sent year's voting paper. The voter was in formed that A was nominated by the President for the year, and was seconded by an ex- President ; that he had attended twenty-one times at the Council meetings, and that he was a member of the outgoing Council; but that B was only nominated by one friend and seconded by another; that he had not attended at all at the Council meetings, and was not a member of the outgoing Council. Secondly, how could a voting paper be said to contain only necessary information if it gave the voter particulars of the nomination ? Nomination was merely a matter of procedure, and the only persons who required to know that a candidate had been properly proposed were the scruti neers. Did the voting paper of the Society put all the candidates on the same par, and were voters influenced by the information con tained therein ? Could equality of treatment be