FARMERS' UNION CLUB.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9802, 23 July 1903, Page 3

FARMERS' UNION CLUB.

(Tc the Editor of the Herald.) Sir. — Since the unfortunate dispute at the meeting of the Farmers' Club seems to liave attracted considerable attention, it may be as well for the information of those members who were unable tn be present to explain the position of tliose who found it necessary to resign from the Club as a protest against the illegal manner m which its affairs were conducted. The committee had received an offer from Mr Dunlop which seemed to be so exceptionally good, financially and otherwise, that it would have been folly m the interests of the Club to run the risk of. losing so good a chance. It therefore decided (on the assumption that the committee was appointed to conservo the interests of the Club) to accept Mr Dunlop's offer, provided that he gave it the refusal for sufficient time to enable all the members to have an opportunity of voting. On Mr Dunlop agreethe committee issued a circular and voting papers to -all the members of the Club. I may mention m passing that Mr W. D. Lysnar was one of the committee, and distinctly expressed his approval of voting by , ballot on this occasion; although he has invariably expressed himself as being opposed to it, and personally I have always disagreed with him on this point. I hold that the majority — the 154 members of the Club who mainly lived m the country — should rule and elect their officers, etc., instead of allowing the 15 to 20 gentlemen who live m the vicinity and are easily able to attend meetings to act for them — even though, should he not be amongst those elected, it should lead to the loss of the inestimable services of Mr Lysnar. In the case under review the committee had placed two proposals before the members to vote upon, with estimates of finances for both, i.e., whether the Club should remain at the Masonic Hotel or whether it should be removed to the new buildings ; and although some 80 votes (estimated) had ( been sent m and there were about another 16 •members m the room who wished to have the matter decided at once, these votes were all thrown out and rendered invalid by the votes recorded at the meeting of some 16 members only, it is safe to say that no legal gentleman other than Mr Lysnar could • venture to assert that votes recorded at one meeting for a particular purpose, could be transferred to another by the will of a minority and still be legally valid, as that gentleman holds that they may be. It is doubtful if 'Mr Hegarty, the proposer of . the resolution, "that the question should be determined at a subsequent meeting" fully recognised at the time its effects, i.e., that if carried the resolution would render all the votes already recorded by ballot inoperative, and consequently deprive a considerable majority of ' the members of their absolute right to exercise their votes on the question. I have Mr Dunlop's emphatic denial to Mr Lysnar's statement that his offer would remain open after the meeting of the 18th inst. I do not think that it can be held that any injsutice was done to Mr Harding m this matter, as it surely would Be the practice of a landlord, under such circumstances to approach his tenants with fresh proposals on the near expiration of the lease. Although we have, on the authority of Mr Acland-Hood at the meeting, that Mr Harding was informed at the very earliest inception of the movement that the question of a change was likely to be considered, he made absolutely no movement m the direction of extending the lease of the club premises. I think that as a matter of busyness the least that the Committee could expect from Mr Harding was that he should have made some sort of proposal to them with a view of allowing members an extended use of his premises. To sum the whole matter up shortly, this dispute is not a question really of Mr Dunlop's or Mr Harding's buildings, but whether country members of the club have a right to vote by ballot on its affairs or whether the few town members shall control the Club alone. It is satisfactory to note that while this unfortunate trouble (which we all deplore) has disturbed the Farmers' Union Club, the Farmers' Union — which is entirely distinct from it — is not affected, and I feel assured that it will be the aim of all members whateyer their opinions may be' to keep their organisation one and indivisible. — I am, etc., LISSANT CLAYTON.