In The Watch Tower.

Northland Age, Volume 27, Issue 22, 24 August 1927, Page 3

In The Watch Tower.

What Are People’s Rights,

Questions and Resolutions

Should They be Answered

(Bv The Observer).

What are People’s Rights? is a question which has never been clearly defined, or defined so as to serve as a guide to the rank and file of the public. In the first place one finds that nuisance, the "agitator” inflaming the minds Of that great mass of people known coloquially as the "great unwashed” over what is supposed to be their rights. Now one must admit that every man woman and child has certain national rights and for them'to be deprived of those rights, constitutes a most improper act. We do know that this is done, and • done from design ; and the meth- ■ ods adopted are numerous, and vary in degree according to the imental calibre of the person or ipersons who perform the “doing” It goes on everywhere, and those guilty of the practice, in most cases, are merely acting for some political, or perhaps some commercial unit. It does not matter a great deal whatpolitical faction might be the Government for the time being, by strategical means the people are prevented from exercising their rights freely, and without being influenced. This kind of thing has gone on since earliest times, subsequent to the .advent of political factions. There are on the other hand undoubted rights, which people have, and in pressing those right's they should not be considered as having communistic or anarchistic leanings. It anyoije takes for example an institution, such as a ■“ratepayer’s association,” it naturally follows that every ratepayer is entitled to address himself to the questions which exercise the minds of the executive far the time being, without in i #sr way whatever, being open tq

the charge thitheis exceeding his rights. So too is it with share holders in a business. If a man has only five shares in a stated concern, he is entitled to discuss every phise of that business, and he should not have been browbeaten or, “ruled out,” because he has sufficient interest in the business to ask questions, propose resolutions, or even amendments to resolutions. Yet »it frequently happens that when men, not quite occupying a place within the inner circle with the “great men,” get up to move resolutions, etc., or ask questions about the affairs of a company in which they hold shares, these questions beget for the shareholder sedk*ng information, a certain amout of discourtesy. Often has he noticed most unassuming men get up at a company meeting and make most sensible and constructive suggestions, only to find some less intelligent individual make a rude remark which had no reference to the question asked, but it was personal in, and was laughed at by individuals, not more brainy than the rude interjector. The questioner has a right to ask questions and the rude interjector has no. right to make rude interjections. He may do so of course, but his offence merely proclaims to all the world so to speak the ignorant numbskull he is. Strange as it may appear, it is nevertheless true, that directors of companies for the most part do not appreciate, and indeed they depreciate questions with any searehing effect being asked. Why is it dificult to understand. Surely the object of having shareholders meetings is to give them an opportunity of gaining information and being able to understand how any particular concern is managed. How then are they to secure information if the asking of questions is to be dicontinued. Another point which strikes one most forcibly, is that no matter the ability a directerate may display in the conduct of the business they are elected to control, there are always men with equal ability among the

shareholders, and an exchange of ideas at meetings held will necessirily make for the advancement of a given business. This brings one to the point that at all general meetings, directors and share shareholders are equal, This is not considered so by the former, in all cases, an 1 it should m inifestly be forced upon them in such cases. A similar remark is opportune in connection with local bodies. It is amusiug how some representatives on local governing institutions, run away with the silly idea that they are the salt of the earth, and that the ratepayers must p ly them homage before they will consider a request for a load of metal, or the construction of a bridge and so oli It is the ratepayers prerogative to request that certain work be performed, and it is the representatives duty to accede to this request, provided the necessary fu ids are available. So we go oi, artd the people have a right 11 ask questions, move resolutions or amendments on all matters with which they are personally concerned, an i it is for those, for the time being acting for them to d i their bidding. Unfortunately, we frequently find the boot on the other foot, but that dies not alter the fact that the people have rights and are entitled to exercise them.