MINUTES CHALLENGED.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16289, 13 August 1918, Page 2

MINUTES CHALLENGED.

ANOTHER CITY COUNCIL

WRANGLE,

ECHO OF RECENT DIVISION.

• A fortnight ago, following upon certain remarks made by Cr. Wells, Or. Fiesher called for a division in the City Council upon a motion that a leu** now ine JHuuswsr regarding, tue pausing or a patriotic xiiuuou by Cue tw received. Or.' otuuvan mused 10 vote, ana aert :uo council Ciiawuer.

vtnen tne council last evening was caneu upou to cuwiiin tuu imuUkus,

v/i\ iiuwaiu proitjouea Luul tut;v »veio incorrect. lie cuiiieiiuuu tuat ;ts or. rieouei- caliea lur u uivioiuii ms iiauiu iituat. vmn tuG "uvea" ' luvug witii tuu names or (Jr. Wens ana tut* speaker. iiuoufeti xur J. .LUcvowu*, lu.x*., ne hau secured an opinion Irom tne ciei'K ox tlie riuuse or uves. He had hauued copies ol uus opiuion to tne Mayor and or. Jjiesuer, aud lie it was maue clear that no memuer uouid vote "aye" and tneu call lor a division. < Anouier councillor: What do you maintain ? Or. Howard said he maintained that an unfair advantage had oeen taneu in securing the voice of the Council <•» the question beiore it. It was unfair tor tne majority to take advantage of the minority at any time, and in this case an unfair advantage had been taKen to havo the names of tue minority recorded. "We must have that gentleman with the 'noes,' he i declared.

'Ine Mayor (Mr H. Holland) stated tljpt so far as his memory served him he did not think the motion was declared carried before a division was called for. », Just as the "ayes" were being called for, Cr. Wells rose and asked to speak, and then Cr. Flesher asked for a division.

Cr. Howard: You were then twice wrong. You had to give your declaration before a division was taken.

The Mayor: I did not, because Cr. Wells rose to speak. Cr. Howard: Then you were doubly wrong. ■ The Mayor: Anyhow, the Council is ndt guided by tho Standing Orders of the House.

Cr. Flesher said Cr. Howard now challenged the minutes. It did not matter whether anything had been done rightly or wrongly, the question before the Council was whether the minutes were a correct record of'what took place at the last meeting or not. He submitted that they were. Cr. Howard was out of order in raising the constitutional question. The record was strictly correct, and the clerk of the-House of Representatives specifically referred to the faCt that the Council Standing Order was more explicit on certain points than that (f the House of Representatives, and also that when a peTson called for a division he had the right to explain why he called for it. Cr. Howard: That is so.

Proceeding, Cr. Flesher maintained that his action in asking for a division was not unfair at all. They ail had their convictions and they ought not to be afraid of them, and they should -not shirk them when tho occasion arose. The reason attributed to him was entirely wrong. His reason was due to the unfortunate remarks of Cr. Wells. If she had not made them he would not have asked for the division. He had nobody else in mind.

Cr. Howard said Cr. Flesher had not put the position clearly. Cr. Loasby asked how many times Cr. Howard was to be allowed to speak.

Cr., Howard said he' was making a personal explanation. The minutes must not be confirmed if they were incorrect.

Cr. Loasby: Cr. Howard is out of order. There is no personal explanation at all. He has already spoken ohce. ;

The motion that the minutes be connrmcd was then put to the Council, and declared carried on the voices. In the course of his letter Mr A. F. Lowe, clerk of the House, of Representatives, .wrote:—

"A member Bhould not give Bis voice with the ayes and when the chairman do: lares the ayea have it call for a division. If he wants a division ho ehould give his voice with the noes and vote with the noes. After the division has been token he can explain that although an aye he voted no in order that a division might be taken and the name 3 placed on record. The following' ruling of Mr Speaker O'Rorko, quoting. Mr Speaker Denison, sets out the position clearly: — 'A member should not give his voice one way and then _ try to force a division by saying the opposite aide had it. Any gentleman who has first given his voice with the ayes, an! then said the notes had it, in order to force a division, does en irregular and unparliamentary thing. And anybody who bag given his voice with the ayes, when the Speaker, in conformity with that, had declared "tin ayes have it," challenges tha dec sion of tin Speaker, and says ■ "the noea heve it," would have to vote with the. roee.' "If a member challenges the chairman's decision that the ayes have it, he must be deemed to > t no and his vote must' follow his voice—as already stated it is usual to allow h.m uo explain his vote."