CORRESPONDENCE.

Bush Advocate, Volume XX, Issue 938, 4 February 1908, Page 4

CORRESPONDENCE.

TUX BOROUGH DEADLOCK. THE MA YOU IX REPLY. (To the Editor.) Sir.— Alt hong)] it does not troubio nu», tho slightest what you or anybody else says about mo 'in regard to the present deadlock of the Council, there, is only ono thing 1 troubio about, and that is always to be suro to do what is right, I think itwould be wrong of mo to allow some of the statements in your last night's paper to pass unco'rrected, and, I therefore claim spaeo for the follow"l«:. — *'°" construe Mr Martin.* [opinion as follows: Clause 3 "Thr» j Mayor was not justified in refusing to accept Cf Collett's motion.'" Cr Collet's motion reads: "That in view of tho necessity of the work of regrading High street, this Council," eie. Now, surely, this motion deals n-it]i the re-grading; of High street, and Mr Martin says: "No member had a legal right to move at that mooting in relation to tho High street re-grading." What else, then, could T do but refuse tho motion, provided. of course, that J saw it was illegal ? Again, Mr Martin says: "The petition could at that meeting' be only received." That is exactly what I did, and refused to do anything elsewith it. I was, therefore, twiets over in my rights to refuse the motion, and still you say I was not justified. T,i clauso 4 you say I was .justified to refuse Cr Hansom's motion a ud still in clause 5 you say 1 was not justified in refusing Cr Drummond's motion. Mr Martin certainly docs not say so. Tho same reason which made it my duty to rule Cr Ransom's motion out of order, most certainly bound mo also to rule Cr Drunimond's motion out. There maybo a, lot to say in regard to the Mayor's error mentioned in clause 6 and the Council's rights according to clauso 1. How you arrived at such conclusions, of course, I do not know, but Mr Martin's opinion certainly does not go in that direction, and, I thought they were obtained for tho i purpose, of being guided by them. Tho whole affair of the 'deadlock I hinges on this one point : Had tho Mayor tho right to refuso tho two motions (Cr Collett's and Cr Ransom's) over which the deadlock occurred ? Mr Martin says that not only was the Mayor in his right to refuso. them; but, it would not hav<s been legal had ho accepted Them. This ends tho matter as far as I am concerned at present. To-night's meeting, I suppose, will give opportunity for further explanations from both sides. In the meantime, I am. etc., H. M. KIES: - [W o are not disposed to question the Mayor's constant desire, to do right, but wo would warn him against tho fatal error of "protesting too much" on this point. Equally strongly Avoukl wo warn him against an obvious twisting of plain words, and he will excuse us for saying that his interpretation of Cr Collett's motion is pure and simple quibbling. That ' motion was a courteous answer to tho petition :ntj nothing: «Ise. Its reference io High street did no more than to reaffirm what the Council had alleady decided to do, but the question of how the work was to be done, whether by contract or day labor, was never involved. Mr Martin's opinion that tho petition could only bo "received" at that meeting, is deMTvwg of further attention by Councillors. This clauso lias clearly been inserted in the opinion by Mr Marrm as the result of something tho Mayor has told him, what that something was we don't know, and every opinion is necessarily affected by tho data on which it is given. Certainly wo see no reason why this petition should be treated differently to any other petition and the common practice of the Council has always been to deal with petitions on tho same night that they were received, unless there was some reason for delaying them. With all duo respect to Mr Martin, wo cannot see how sections 44-49 of tho Standing Orders justify him in saying that the petition could only bo. "received." Tho Council have aright to know what question was asked of Mr Martin to induce him to give this I reply before they are in any way bound by it. With regard "to Cr Ransom's and Cr Drummond's motions, they appear to us to be on an entirely different basis. Cr Ransom's mo c ion was contradictory to something rht> Council had already decided to do. Cr Drumniond was only proposing to vary the specifications and not any essential principal which the Council had already affirmed, so that it seems to us that the one ruting did not apply to the two motions. But supposing they did, nothing can excuse the^Mayor for not being candid with his Council, and tolling them frankly why he rejected their motions. The Councillors are entitled to the same respect and gentlemanly treatment that he is entitled to. but instead of receiving this they have boon treated with indigniry and contempt, which is not calculated to entice our be-,t citizens to give their time and energies to tlio service of the public. Ir is, perhaps, fortunate for the Mayor that ho did not give his reason.-, at the time, as we feel they would have been very different to those ho is giving now.]