THE HARBOR LITIGATION.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XIV, Issue 4774, 27 January 1887, Page 3

THE HARBOR LITIGATION.

MORE PLAIN SPEAKING

A special meeting of the Board was held last night. Present : Messrs Graham (Chairman), J. W. Sunderland, Sievwright, Townley, Matthewson, Dickson, and Chambers. Mr Sievwright moved, " That the resolution not to sign the warrant to defend the Board bo rescinded and that the warrant be signed." It was unnecessary to say much. They had had all through to make the best of a very clumsy piece of legislation, and had succeeded fairly well, doing everything with the full knowledge and "consent of tho community. There had never been any serious difference on the Board until the question of day labor or contract arose, bub from then till now there had been what he could only characterise as systematic obstruction by a small section of the Board, and it seemed to him their present troubles had arisen very much from that. If the litigation against the Board could, by any possibility, be successful, it would have a most disastrous effect on the district, and he could not understand how any member could possibly countenance such action —it was a perfectly suicidal thing. He did not think it was consistent with the duty of any member to do so. Mr Chambers seconded. As he had expressed himself fully at the last meeting he need say nothing moro now. The Chairman thought some of the members who voted for the motion not to sign must have done so under a misapprehension, as, the Board having been joined, not to defend would have simply been suicidal. Mr Townley asked if any actual harm had been done by the non-signing. The Chairman said the resolution wa3 wired down and made the utmost use of by the other side, who attempted to show that Mr DeLautour had no status whatever in Court, but the Judge said that Mr DeLautour's name being on the record must override that contention. At the same time MrDeLatour's position might have been considerably weakened. Mr Townley thought tho Chairman had taken rather aiuch on himself in acting without convening the Board when the Board was joined. The Board might have even wished for some outsido advice. The Board had the most desperate set of enemies that any public body in New Zealand had ; not only outside but evidently on the Board itself. Considering the enormous possible importance of tho issue the Chairman should have convened this Board, and he thought more harm was done in that than in the passing of the resolution not to sign. If he had made an error he was quite ready to acknowledge it, and rectify it ; but no harm had been done. The only member who knew the warrant was coming before them was Mr Sievwright. It was quite a surprise to all the rest. The case had not been put in a proper business manner before the Board. He did not think the remarks made censuring the rJoard were justified at all. Mr Chambers said it was true that fortunately no harm had been done, but that was only by accident. If Mr DeLautour had not practically ignored the resolution very great harm would have been done. It was by the merest accident *hat the resolution had not done very grievous harm to tho district. He understood that judgment waa withheld solely because the warrant was not in the judge's hands, and would not be given till it was. Mr Matthewson : Does Mr Delnutovr say that? Mr Chambers was not prepared to give hi* authority. He understood so. Probably it was* seen—what everyone here knew —that it was not a case where a ratepayer felt himself injured by the action of the Board, but was a purely vexatious action, ao the judge allowed Mr DeLautour to proceed for the time without the warrant. If it wa3 a private case would any member dream of allowing it to go against him by default ? Not a man on the Board would be ao foolish. However foolish and vexatious an action was it had to be defended. The case appeared to him to be not capable of argument. '\Mr Matthewson said the virtuous and downtrodden majority were sued at law for certain laches and were now attempting to throw the liability off their own shoulders on to those of the public. Ho did not think any action taken now could save them individually. The solicitor got the Board joined by direction of the Chairman without the authority of the Board. If the majority were clear they had the law on their side, what had they to fear '( Mr Chambers : You are sore. Mr Matthewson : Not more sore than you are. Mr Chambers said the Chairman had been instructed to defend by the Board. [He read the motion.] Mr Matthewson had not been present then. It was quite illegal to pass such a resolution before the Board had been charged with anything. The suffering majority asserted boldly and blatantly that the minority was wrong, but they had certainly done their duty. He had acted Btraightly and conscientiously ! If the majority had law on their side, why be afraid of individual action when they must win the case ? The Chairman : We shall have to pay even if we win. Mr Matthewson: I don't see it! (Laughter.) Mr Sievwright: Men of straw ! (Laughter.) Mr Matthewson : It is very good straw. Ifou need not fear any action if you are right. Mr Sievwright said Mr Townley had no right to say he knew all about the warrant before. He had been away from Gisborne and did not know of what had been done. He was surprised when the warrant was presented to them. It was pretty plain to his mind that the Judge saw the case could not go on without making the Board a party, and being made one they were bound to defend. He thought any tem-perate-minded man, not possessed of what Americans call " cussedness," reading the writ would entirely agree that the Board had no option but to defend. He could not for a moment imagine the Board so stultifying itself as to allow judgment on all the serious charges made against them going by default. Mr Dickson said no member had known anything about a writ being served on tho Board. Mr Chambers said no writ had been served yet. The Board had been simply joined. Mr Dickson said only the Board should have decided what should be done — not the Chairman alone. He was one of the minority. It had been cast in his teeth that his action had been influenced by his being a politician. Well, at any rate he had a policy. His policy was to build a harbor at sea and not on shore. There were only three members who wanted the harbor to be at sea. The otherß rode a hobby and wanted it on shore. The Chairman said every member had thought they had been first served as a Board, and there was a minute authorising him to defend. When the Board was joined by the Court ho did what any one (Continued on, fourth page).