THE CITY SURVEYORSHIP.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1999, 1 October 1869, Page 2

THE CITY SURVEYORSHIP.

(To the Editor of the Evening Star,) Sir,— l was pi ad to notice that you had taken up the matter of Councillor M'Glashau’s protest in reference to the above subject ; but I was rather surprised that you did not administer a severe rebuke to Councillor Fish and those who sided with him for the part they took. I feel sure that had the whole facts of the case been known to you, yon would have condemned the action of the majority in far stronger terms than you did. The simple question that the City Council had to decide was, whether or not the protest should be received ? Before any discussion took place, the Mayor was at some pains to explain that it was competent for a majority to decide that the protest be expunged from the minutes on two grounds only, viz. : that the protest was not in accordance with truth, or that it was couched in language disrespectful to the Council. The protest was not questioned on the second grountyby anyone, but it was attacked on the first ground, viz., that the statement of facts was not in accordance with truth. Councillor Fish, who moved that the protest be not received, did so on the ground—l use his own words—that “it was not a correct record of facts.” In a speech, which was characterised by unusual warmth of feeling, ho argued that none of the grounds of the protest were true. The motion having been secqnded proforma by Councillor Griffien, Councillor M'Glashan procepilpd to show that the protest was a correct record qf facts. Ttys opinion was shared in by three other cfr.mqjlpra, and Councillor Bods, by his subsequent conduct, showed that he entertained a similar opinion. It would appear that Courodlor Fish, seeing the turn affairs 'were likely to take, attempted to carry t-y unfair means a motion that he could not carry by fair means. Instead of allowing his motion to be put in its original shape, he altered it so that the question, as put, was merely that the prqte-t be expunged. At this stage of the proceeding*, (Jouncillor Beds asked whether the motion, if carried, affirmed that the protest was not a true statement of facts ; and he received from Councillor Fish an answer in tiie negative. The motion was then carried by four to three votes. Councillor M'Glashan at oueo stated tljat, after the expression of the opinion of the Council, as evidenced by the motion, lie could not longer sit at tiie Council table. Councillor Bods thereupon remarked that he had been induced to vote for the motion because it bad been stated that it affirmed nothing. From the above statement of facts it will be seen that the protest could only be expunged from the minutes on two specific grounds—that the majority of the Council were of opinion that the gm inds did not exist; and that, by a course of action which cannot be too strongly condemned, Councillor Fish was enabled, if I may quote from your article, “ to accomplish that which the sound judgment of the members themselves cannot altogether approve.—l am, kc., Fair Play. October I, 1869.