MR LAHMAN AND THIS LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1326, 29 October 1872, Page 2

MR LAHMAN AND THIS LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

In the Legislative Council, on October 2Lst, the report of the Westland Investigation Committee was brought up. It was to the effect that Mr Schaw was dismissed in consequence of a letter written by the County Chairman, in which he stated that Mr Schaw's dismissal had been recommended by the County Council. Mr Lab. man stated that if he had read that letter he would not have signed it. Mr Tennant, County Secretary, states that the letter referred to was written in accordance with the verbal instructions of the Chairman, and he also states that Mr Lahman did read the letter, and directed a certain alteration to be made in it. The Hon. Colonel .Kenny moved that the report in the case of the dismissal of Warden Schaw be adopted. The Hon. Mr Lahman said that he expected Colonel Kenny would have acceded to his request, and would have allowed his (Mr Lahman's) motion to take precedence. It was a matter more important to him than life. But the action now was simply in keeping with what had been said in the Council before with regard to this matter. The Hon. Mr Miller said he would much regret if the Council took the motion in hand before that of Mr Lahman. It would not be fair to condemn him unheard. Remarks had been made in this Council when the matter was previously before it that he was sure the members regretted. Mr Lahman had not been treated in a fair spirit. The Hon. Colonel Brett said that Mr Miller was not justified in passing such censures on this Council. The report of the Committee had fully borne out the remarks which had been made. The Hon. Mr Lahman, in moving that the report of the Westland Investigation Committee be considered, said he was fully aware of the task lie had undertaken to-day in the face . of the report brought up by the committee, and the treatment he had before received at the hand 3 of the Council. At the least his action was excusable. AH throughout the matter he had acted in the belief that he was doing his best for the interests of the County, and that belief gave him *he moral courage to appear there and speak in his own defence. He had now: lived nineteen year 3 among Englishmen, and he had ever found them to be actuated by a spirit of fair play ; but he must say that the action of this Council had tended' to modify this opinion. With regard to the letter signed by him, and forwarded to the Colonial Secretary, recommending the dismissal of Mr Warden Schaw. he gave as his reason for such recommendation that the County Council of Westland had carried a motion to the effect that Mi Schaw's services could be dispensed with. The report of the Committee now before the House states that they have no evidence to show that such a recommendation had ever been made by the County Council. He might have easily made s mistake, seeing that the facts of the whole case had slipped his memory; and he stated in this Council that had he seen the letter before it was sent he would not have signed it. Since the committee had taken the evidence, he had received a declaration on oatl from a gentleman, whose honor and truthfulness no one could call into question, tc the effect that the Council in Committee did pass a recommendation to dismiss Mi -Wo.j.cioiv^Sokavuy and that, they requested the County Chairman to forward such re solution to the Colonial Secretary. Th< gentleman who made this declarator occupied the important position of Count] Treasurer, and he would appeal to Mi Bonar if he was not one in whom implicit faith might be placed in his veracity The members of the County Council alsc commented severely upon the leave ol absence given by the General Govern ment to Mr Warden Schaw. However, the Council had no power to recommend the dismissal of Mr Schaw. In the County Chairman was vested the whole executive power of the County, and his (Mr Lahman's) recommendation would have been quite sufficient to procure his services being dispensed with without any reference to the County Council. He had made a mistake in not saying that it was he himself who advised the Colonial Secretary on the subject. Moreover, was il likely that he would instruct a clerk ol the Council to write in a letter thai which he (the clerk), from his intimate knowledge of what transpired in the Council, would know to be a falsehood 1 Mr Hoos had tabled a motion in the County Council distinctly stating that Mi Schaw should be dismissed. This motion was negatived by the Council. But why? Because they had given their opinion before on the matter. Seeing that Mr Hoos's motion had been brought on through personal animosity, he (Mr Lahman) said that the dismissal of Schaw could be obtained by his simply writing to. the Colonial Secretary. He would admit that the case before the full knowledge of the circumstances had come to light, looked rather suspicious ; but after the letter of the County. Treasurer he did nit see how hon. gentlemen could believe that he had been guilty of dishonorable or ungentlemaniy conduct. He was perfectly satisfied in his own mind that* he was fully justified in doing what he did. The County Chairman was very often asked to carry out recommendations of the Council of which there were no full or printed information to guide him, and it was quite possible that errors might occur in carrying out the instructions. What possible reason could he have 'in saying that such a recommendation of the Council had been made when that of his own would have been sufficient? Mr Gfisborne said that the principal reason for the dismissal of Mr Schaw was that no provision had been made for his salary. He was almost a perfect stranger here, and he heard with surprise that it was not so much with the object of seeing justice done to Mr Schaw that the Council had taken such a decided action in the matter, but it was to prevent him retaining a seat in this Council, He could scarcely believe that. This honor was conferred on him without his seeking. When he was asked to become a member it was pointed o.ut that his knowledge of mining would be of some service in the Legislature ; and also that he being a German would be able to give information on the subject of immigration, as there was considerable attention then drawjp to his native cnuntry as a field for procuring suitable immigrants, and he believed that he would have been of service had it not been for the treatment ho had received. He was not one who would thrust himself forward where he

was not wanted. But if he wanted jnstice done him he would not shirk to aak for it ; . and lie wanted nothing but fair play. Any action hon. gentlemen might take could not affect him as County Chairman of Westland, but as a member of this Council he wonld be bound -to notice it. Evidence had been taken before the Committee when he was not present ; and another thing he had to complain of was that the Committee closed ite labors before he had time to collect sufficient information so as to put the matter in a clear and proper light. He would forcibly remind hon. gentlemen that if the report be true in stating that there - was no recommendation of the County Council to dismiss Mr Schaw, the declaration on oath of Mr Horton, the County Treasurer, must be entirely false, aud that gentleman would be liable to be' tried for perjury. The County Chairman might have made mistakes, but he had done nothing for which he had reason to feel ashamed. The Hon. Colonel Kenny moved that the report of the Westland Investigation Committee be adopted, and transmitted, together with the evidence,' to his Excellency the Governor by the Hon. the Speaker. He said he was sorry to. hear Mr Lahman say that he had not received fair treatment at the hands of the Council, and particularly in reference to him (Colonel Kenny) for bringing forward this motion. He was also surprised at his remarks, for ou Saturday hethanked him for bringing it forward. He disclaimed all ill-feeling to the hon. gentleman. He had been actuated' only by a feeling of public duty, An intense feeling existed in the Council with regard to this case, and" they were placed in a very difficult and delicate position, and it was necessary that steps should be taken to bring this question to an issue. By taking this course he thought everything would be attained. Mr Lahraan has said that the report was one-sided. By adopting this motion an opportunity^would be given of placing both the cvi- ' dence and the report before the Governor. '. " . The Hon. Mr Hart said that while all the evidence taken before the Committee was on oath, that of Tennent, the Clerk of the County Council, was only a simple statement ; and if he was found to have stated falsely he could not be tried for perjury. " This was an important fact the Council could not well overlook. The debate was resumed on 22nd of October, ... The Hon. Mr Hart said that had all the evidence which was now in the possession of the Council been placed before the Committee, he had no doubt that a different conclusion would have bsen arrived at. The declarations of Horton andßitson, and the letter of Mr G.sborne, had placed the matter in a different light. There was no doubt that several members of the County Council had requested that Mr Schaw should be ' dismissed. His only regret was that Mr Lahman should have used language in his letter conveying the impression that the County Council had recommended the dismissal of Mr Schaw, instead <of only expressing a wish to that effect. The Hon. Me Bonar said it was far from his desire, to say anything against the gentleman whose conduct was now under discussion. What he already said was printed in the evidence, and was now in the hands of the Council. He entirely agreed with what had fallen from Mr Lahman with regard to the high character of Mr Horton, the Treasurer of the County of Westland. The County Treasurer had stated in his declaration . that the dismissal of Mr Warden' Schaw had been discussed when the County Council was in Committee, and it was recommended by the Council. That might appear inconsistent with the evidence which he (Mr Bonar) had given before the Committee. He had stated that he remembered of no such recommendation having been made by the Council. He was not present in the Council when the subject was under discussion. It must be apparent to hon. members that no definite resolution was come to, as in the debate — which took place next day no mention was made of the dismissal of Schaw. The County Chairman then said, in reply to Mr Hoos, that there were, too many Wardens, but that he would leave f it to the Government to decide which of t them should be discharged. Mr Lahman j had said that it was only since he had 3 come to Wellington that he was aware ? that a correspondence had taken plaoe i between him (Mr Bonar) and Mr Schaw. r He had been requested by thafgeatlei man to furnish him with whatever infor- ? mation he knew on the subject. It was i suggested that he and another member f of the County Council, Mr Buller, should i make statutory declarations ; but they - came to the conclusion that as members t of the Council it would not be right for > them to make such declarations, and I which were to be used against the Chair- - man of the County. He utterly denied > that he was in any way influenced by the : letter he had received from Mr Schaw. I The Hon. Mr Miller said that he had i no doubt that the chief cause of all the • trouble was that Mr Lahman had mis- „ r taken the discussion when the Cqu.n,t# i Council was in committee fop a, yeconv. i mendation of the Qqqnpil that Mr War- " . den Schaw. should be dismissed;;' It would i have been far better if the" hon. member ■ (Mr, Lahman) had at first stated that , really there was no recommendation of 1 the Council on the subject, but he had i acted on what he believed to be the/ opinion of the Council. He th.ou.gh>, when all the circumstances Qf the.oa^ were taken into consideration., hop. members would come to. the conclusion that no animus had been shown by the County Ghurman to Mr Schaw. The Hon. Mr Mantell said he believed that when Mr Lahman first made his statement, he was not aware of the fcotq of the case, and it was only after th.ess had dawned upon him tl\at h% became, aware that he had m&de a mistake. He *did not t^inlj that even if the report w. ; 3 . fully borne out that it would bo produative of any good. In the session of Is7l the Council had swallowed a camel. a,nd, now they strained at a gnat, The Hon. Mr Waterhouae wished to remove from Mr Lehman's mind that the Counoil had been actuated by anything but a spirit of fair play towards him. The report neither condemns nor clears him, The question resolves itself into one o| personal reliability between Mr Lahman and Mr Tennant. All who had known Mr Lahman for a number of years knew him to be a gentleman incapable of a. dishonorable action and would believe him. All the Committee could say was

that the evidence was so conflicting that they could give no decision one way or the other. There was nothing in the evidence that warranted a severe condemnation. It was a romissness on Mr Lahman's part in not considering the full force of the language he employed. The intention and the wish of the County Council was that Mr Schaw should be dismissed. Mr Gisborne stated that the County Council had refused to vote the supply for Mr Schaw's aahry, and that it was evidently the wish of that body he should be removed. Mr Bonar stated in his evidence that he believed it was in accordance with the desire of the County Council that Mr Schaw should bo dismissed. He also stated that there was no desire expressed to get rid of any of the other Wardens. Having reference to the fact that Mr Lahman was a foreigner, it would be admitted that he convoyed more in the letter by the words he used than if he had had a knowledge of the language. There was no personal animus shown by Mr Lahman towards Mr Schaw so as to induce him to do him an injury. Persons in official positions would do well to weigh well the words they used. His (Mr Waterhouse's) opinion was that there was no deliberate intention to injure Mr Schaw. The Hon. Dr Grace said Mr Lahman should have admitted his mistake at first. With regard to what Mr Hart had said with reference to the evidence of Tennant not being taken or. oath, and that consequently if it was proved false he could not be tried for perjury, he did not think that was of much importance. The Hon. Captain Baillie said, being a member of the Committee, he wished to say that the charge made by Mr Lahman that he did not get justice done him was unjust. It was painful for anyone to speak to such a question. Mr Lahman had stated that he had not read the letter which he sent to the Colonial Secretary recommending Mr Schaw's dismissal ; but Tennent contradicts this, and says that an alteration was made in the letter at the instance of Mr Lahman. Mr Lahman had made an assertion, and the more he tried to get out of it the deeper he sank. The [Hon. Mr Buckley said that Mr Bonar had stated that it was agreed in the County Council that the services of one Warden should be dispensed with, and that Mr Lahman had then stated to

the Council that he would leave it to the General Government to say which of the two Wardens should be dismissed. It appeared clear to him that Mr Lehman was not justified in writing the letter he did.

The Hon. Mr Acland said he wished to assure Mr Lahman that there was no want of courtesy shown to him on the part of the Committee. After the evidence had closed the Committee did not think it right that Mr Lahman should be c-illed up to give fresh evidence. The Hon. Mr Hall said he had been connected with the part of the Colony in which Mr Lahman held the position of County Chairman, and although he took no part in this question before yet he took a great interest in it. His opinion was the same as that of Mr Hart. After reading the declaration of Horton and Ritson, he thought it was likely that the action of the County Council might likely have left an impression on the mind of the County Chairman that it had recommended the dismissal of Mr Schaw. He did not think that Mr Lahman, in stating that he had not read the letter before signing it, made an intentional miastatonient. It was likely that the circumstance had escaped his memory. The Hon. Mr Lahman said that it had been stated that he was very contradictoiy in his evidence. "When he came to Wellington he had not the slightest idea that he would be required to give evidence. He had ordered all papers connected with the case, and! by some mischance the letter referred to had not been forthcoming. In making the statement that he had not read the letter before signing it, he could only be guided by the line of action he always pursued, and that if he had read the letter and it contained anything that was not true, he never would have signed it. It had been Mr Schaw's particular business to collect evidence for the past six months. Thero could now be no doubt that the County Council recommended the dismissal of Mr Schaw. He trusted that the motion would be carried, and the evidence and the report laid before the Governor. He would like to see a commission of inquiry held in Hokitika, where fuller information could be obtained than in Wellington. The motion was carried.