WAS IT LEGAL? ELECTION OF HARBOUR BOARD CHAIRMAN

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 124, 27 May 1915, Page 3

WAS IT LEGAL? ELECTION OF HARBOUR BOARD CHAIRMAN

A BREEZY MEETING PERSONALITIES INDULGED IN. The Harbour Board met last evening. Present : The Chairman (Mr. C. E. Daniell), Messrs. M. Cohen, R. A. Wright, M.P., R. E. Sinclair, A. M'Farlane, J. Cobbe, J. W. M'Ewan, R. Fletcher, M.P., A. H. Hindmarßh, M.P., J. G. Harkness, H. L. Nathan, 0. W. Jones, W. Cable, and Captain D. J. Watson. After the minutes relating to the election of chairman at the last meeting had been read, Mr. Hradmarsh. suggested the I utmost care with regard to the record of the election, the question of the legality of the election having been raised. The matter was not put to the ballot as the minutes suggested. He had proposed that, voting for Messrs. Daniell and Harkness being equal, ihe meeting should elect the chairman by taking a second vote, not ballot. Both candidate* for the chair assented. This was unanimously agreed to. Mr. Jones said Mr. Ha-rkoese did not assent to this. The secretary said the word " ballot " was wrongly_ used in the minutes. "Vote" was the word that should be used. Mr. Harkness said the definition of the word was inessential. ' The real question was : Were the minutes correct ? He held that 1 they were. However, the board agreed to the alteration in the minutes, Mr. Harkness dissenting. CHALLENGE INVITED. The Chairman stated that, acting on the advice of the board's solicitor, ho wa« taking the chair. If anyone had any desire to challenge the legality of the proceeding he was at liberty to» do so then. Mr. Nathan said he had been asked by aoi outsider to raise the question of the regularity of the election. Mr. Fletcher : Who was the " outsider " ? Mr. Nathan, proceeding, said he was actuated by the sol© desire to have the legality of the chairman settled definitely. He had no personal interest in the matter at all. He had obtained legal opinion, which was in conflict with that of the board's solicitors. But it was a matter that should be set right, as it affected the legality of anything the board might do in. the future. He moved : " That the board obtain an independent legal opinion." - Mr. R. E. Sinclair seconded. "SUBMARINE TACTICS." Mr. Fletcher termed the point raised by Mr. Nathan as. "the most despicable" thing that had ever come under hia notice during his long experience of public life. Mr. Fletcher then' described the proceedings at the election, and characterised Mr. Nathan's action as "submarine tactics." Mr. Nathan objected. Mr. Fletcher charged Mr. Nathan •with consistently divulging confidential information connected with the board, and said that member had given committee business to the press. He challenged Mr. Nathan to go to the Supreme Court to attempt to unseat the Chairman. Mr. Nathan was worthy of the strongest censure for what he had done. Mr. Jones thought it was bad form to try and upset the election in a roundabout way. He thought Mr. Harkness apparently relied upon Mr. Nathan to secure a, ballot. Mr. ' Nathan : Mr. Harkness bad nothing to do with the matter. Mr. Jones regretted tliat Mr- Harknese was silent. They could not, however, accuse Mr Harkness of that. He strongly disapproved of the Chairman of the Bank of New Zealand dictating (through the press) what the board should do with regard to its wharves. I "PLAYED THE GAME FAIRLY." Mr. Harkness said he was quite able to defend himself without any assistance from Mr. Nathan or anyone else. Since he had been a member of the board ho had played the game fairly and squarely. He had no desire to see Mr. Daniell vacate the chair ; but he did want ' to feel satisfied with the legality of the election. He charged Mr. Fletcher with I not following the proper statutory course of taking a lot, when the voting for the two candidates for the chairmanship was equal. So far as he was personally concerned he did not wish to see the , Chairman unseated, but if they had broken the Act, then the matter should be set right. He had not consulted Mr. Nathan or anyone else in connection with the matter. Mr. Cobbe said he saw no reason why Mi 1 . Daniell should not carry on the board's affairs with credit to himself and to the city. Mr. Cobbe regretted that there had been raised the question of town v. country, which he thought accounted for the opposition to Mr. Daniell ; but Mr. Nathan's action indicated that the Farmers' Union's advocacy for more representation on the board was fully justified. NO TOWN v. COUNTRY CRY. Mr. Wright said no question of Mr. Daniell being a country member had been raised. The question was the validity of the election. The Act plainly said that when there wa3 an equality of votes the result must be obtained by lot. He would feel sorry to se© the present chairman displaced. If they could be quite sure of the ground he would be satisfied. Here one lawyer said tho Act had not .been observed, and the board's solicitors said -that no infringement of it had been made. He counselled obtaining independent legal opinion. The question of the validity of the election had certainly been raised outside. Mr. Hindmarsh held that Mr. Nathan had done quite right in challenging the election of the chairman if he had doubt about it. But if they took another legal opinion ihey might be carried no further. If anyone chose to bring the matter before the Supreme Court, it could be, done. Mr. Harkness had said he had always played the game, but he himself had some doubts in the matter. Undoubtedly, Mr. Harkness had disqualified himself for ever from being chairman of the board. He had brought charges against the chairman which he did not prove Mr. M'Ewan, "liking fair play," objected to Mr. Hindmarsh raising personal matters like these. PERSONALITIES RESENTED. N Mr. Hindmarsh did not think Mr. ITurkness was likely to be overruled by his own . modesty in this matter. Mr. M'Farlaue objected to Mr. Hindmarsh indulging in personalities. Mr. Hindmarsh, speaking warmly, said, Mr. Harkness had not the slightest chance of being a chairman of the board. He had shown, his utter unfitness for the position. Mr. Cobbe said the chairman should not permit this personal attack to proceed. Mr. Hindmarsh kept on. The question was that My. Harkness was maintaining the position that he should be elected chairman of the board. The Chairman : I do hope this will finish. Mr, Hindmarah said. Mx. H»rkn.CM

was unfitted to be a chairman of the board, and he never would be. Mr. M'Farlane strongly objected to this remark. Mr. Hindmarsh : You supported him. Mr. ffarkness wants, if possible, to compel the board to cast lots, as the only possible way in which he could obtain the chair. He asked Mr. Harkness to put the matter right. Mr. Harkness : I am sorry the members round the table objected to Mr. Hindmarsh's remarks. They are the highest tribute that he could have paid to me. Mr. Nathan denied that he had ever given confidential information round the town. Mr. Fletcher : Yes, you did. Mr. Nathan : I treat your remarks with the conteihpt they deserve. I divulged nothing to the press. I gave to the press a legal opinion which I paid for. The Chairman remarked that Mr. Nathan's own solicitor had suggested what he could, do to test the validity of the election. Mr. Nathan proposed that the board should obtain an independent legal opinion from any K.C., and act on that opinion. The motion was lost on a division, by 8 votes to 6, tho voting being as follows : — For the motion : Messrs. Cable, Harkness, M'Farlane, Nathan, Sinclair, Wright. Against : Messrs. Cobbe, Cohen, Daniell, Fletcher, Hindmarsh, Jones, M'Ewan, Watson. The Chairman : We'll get on with the business now.