The Evening Star TUESDAY, MAY 31, 1887.

Evening Star, Issue 7226, 31 May 1887, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, MAY 31, 1887.

The proceedings at the special meeting of the City Council on Friday evening were anything but creditable to that august . body. The motion of Cr Sinclair to remit the investigation of the charges against the Gas Engineer to an arbitrator was made the bone of contention .of a free party fight, much to ithe amusement, as well as disgust, of those citizens whom curiosity induced to witness the proceedings of the civic chamber. Reason' was on the side of Cr Sinclair ; offended pride, assumed most probably to conceal less creditable motives, on the other. Our civic representatives paraded their wrongs before the public. They regarded the motion, which had the support of the Press, as an insult to them, because, forsooth, thoy said it condemned them «,s unfit to judge whether the charges against the Engineer were or were not true. Now nobody ever said so—even of Councillor Fish. That ho is .capable of judging : between right and wrong tbc.re 'can be no doubt; but in the absence of a right exercise of that most invaluable gift, reason, it appears a matter of mere chance, or impulse, or whatever other name it may require to be called, whether he takes the wrong course or the right. We arc afraid that it is too late now to retrace the steps that the dominant clique have taken, although the very lqngthy dpcumenj read by the Gas Engineer as his defence, instead of clearing up the matter, and opening the way for delimiting the range of his authority, has rendered it still more difficult than before. Without a' satisfactory and thorough investigation into the statements' on both sides the public will not be satisfied. Neither should they be. It is not a matter of opinion that is needed; it is a question of fact and of justice. Ordinary mortals would b.c very glad of the opportunity of being released from being ! arbitrators in so unpleasant a matter, apart j from the consideration that it more immediately concerns the administrative department of the Council than the delibera-, tive; but the Gas Committee not having previously received proper support from the Council, it was only natural that they should decline a duty that clearly belongs to them. But since some of the councillors have expressed their judgment of the case unheard, now that it has become a public scandal, they should show themselves worthy of the confidence reposed in them by saying: " Now that the statements havp ,been made. "on both side*, .there slbill remains po be, " proved whfoh of those statements is true, j " They do not agree, and one charges the " other w,ith mis-statement. In order that "we may vindicate our characters for "impartiality it is not too late to> "remit the further investigation to a per. • * fectly independent j udgo,' Unless this is ; done the citizens of Dunedin will not be satisfied that either party has had fair play, and, no matter whether the ultimate decision of the Council be right or wrong, the imputation of motives of various sorts, whfch are now iu everybody's mouth, will remain nnre,njoy,ed. There was not a word said 'by.any 'one of jthe majority that could be deemed a sufficient justification of the course they adopted. ' Crimination and recrimiruxtibn only prove that feelings have been ,arou,sed m the jninds of the Council that, render .still rnor'e apparent the .necessity ifor' leaving the'' fatter to

another tribunal. Men who have taken such a stand show what they arc capable of doing when their pride is touched. On this ground wc scarcely think that this last appeal of ours to their reason will have much weight; but if they wish to maintain that esteem of the citizens which their elevation to office demonstrates, they must put aside mere personal considerations and justify their fitness for their representative position by acting worthily of it. It is to be regretted that the excitement of debate led to a mode of treating the argument by Cr Smith that is scarcely warrantable under any circumstances. The question before the Council was one that should have precluded any personal attack being made. It was simply in effect " Shall we be the judges, or shall we ask someone else to judge for us ?'' Though, no doubt, the object was to show from antecedents that one of the Council had not given reason to believe that he was impartial in the matter, it is not right, according to the rules of debate, to " rake the jakes" of personal history, instead of confining an argument strictly to the matter before the meeting. We trust that so indefensible a practice will be avoided in future, and, whoever may be in the chair, he will be able so to control the speakers that no departure from the question under discussion maybe permitted.