FARMERS’ CLUB.

Gisborne Times, Volume X, Issue 950, 24 July 1903, Page 3

FARMERS’ CLUB.

MB CLAYTON REPLIES TO MR LYSNAR. [(To the Editor Gisborne Times< Sik, —The pacific influence of Mr W. D. Lysnar on all public affairs is too wellknown to need any reply from me to his letter in the Times to-day, so I do not propose to enter into lengthy correspondence with him. Since the unfortunate dispute at the meeting of the Farmers’ Club seems to have attracted considerable attention, it may be as well, for the information of those members who were unable to be present, to oxplain the position of those who found it necessary to resign from the Club as a protest against the illegal manner in which its affairs were conducted. The committee bad received an offer from Mr Dunlop, which seemed to be so exceptionally good, financially and otherwise, that it would have been folly in 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 conserve the in- ! tereets of the Club, to accept Mr Dunlop’s offer, provided tbut he gave it the refusal for sufficient lime to enable all the members an opportunity of voting. On Mr jDunlop agreeing, the committee isaued a circular and voting papers to all members .of the Club. I may mention in passing that Mr W. D. Lysuar was one of the I | committee, and distinctly expressed his approval of voting by ballot on this occasion ; although he has invariably expressed himself as opposed to it, and personally I have always disagreed with him on this point. I hold that the majority—the 154 mombers of the Club who mainly livod in the country—should rule and elect their officers, etc., instead of allowing the fifteen to twenty gentlemen who live in 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 oase 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 remain at the Masonic or whether it should be removed to the new buildings; and although some 80 votes (estimated) had been sent in and there were about another 16 members in the room who wished to have the matter decided at once, these votes were all thrown out apd rendered invalid by the votes recorded in the meeting of some 18 members. It is safe to say that no legal gentleman other than Mr Lysnar could venture to assert that votes reoorded at one meeting for a particular purpose, oould be transferred to another by the will I 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 effect, 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 emphatio 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 injustice was done to Mr Harding in 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 wo have, on the authority of Mr Aoland Hood at the meeting, that Mr Harding was informed at the very earliest inoeption of the movement that the question of a change was likely to be considered, he made absolutely no movement in the direction of extending the lease of the Club premises. I think that, as a matter of business, the least that the Committee could expect from Mr Harding was that he should have made home sort of proposal to them with a view of allowing members an extended use of his premises. 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 mem-

bers,‘whatever their opinions may be, to keep their organisation one and indivisible. 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 oontrol the Club alone.—l am, &c,, Lissant Clayton.