Editor and Returning Officer Exonerated

The result of the Presidential re-election points clearly to one fact—that the first set of elections was conducted well above board with no one candidate gaining an advantage over the other.

The Editor of Salient apparently committed a heinous crime by allowing editorial comment to appear in the Election Supplement, when previous Election Supplements have carried editorial opinion of one shade or another.

The Returning Officer was the convenient scapegoat which the Election Arbitration Committee looked for. There was no basis whatsoever for invalidating the Election for the position of President. If there was any reason for invalidating the election, it was not because of any infringement of the electoral regulations, but because the Election Arbitration Committee did not have the stomach to tell Hay that he was a bad loser.

If there was any unfairness then Hay should have at least won the re-election on a sympathy vote—the poor fellow, tut! tut! My heart bleeds for him.

The people who go to the polls are not exactly imbeciles. I am sure they can tell the difference between a fair and un-fair election and a good and a bad loser.

Well, Hay old boy, what does it feel like to be castrated twice at the polls! I bet it must be smarting real bad. Never mind old son, you can always put in another complaint on the basis that Gyles Beckford won because, instead of wearing clean white underwear to the election forum he wore red ones which probably turned the female voters on.