THE HON. MR LAHMAN AND WARDEN SCHAW. ...

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1313, 14 October 1872, Page 2

THE HON. MR LAHMAN AND WARDEN SCHAW. ...

The Hon. Mr Lahman, on . the day after the discussion which has already been reported, moved— "That a Select Committee be appointed to enquire into the circumstances in connection with the part taken by the County Chairman of Westland, causing the dismissal of Mr Warden Schaw. The evidence to be taken on oath, with power to call for persons and papers, and records, and to report within a fortnight." The speaker briefly alluded to the construction that had been placed upon his conduct when the report of the Select Committee in re Warden Schaw's petition .was brought up for consideration. In view of that construction he said that he felt compelled to take some action to convince the Council that he had been altogether misrepresented. He had no doubt but that he would be able to prove to any impartial committee that his conduct in this matter had not merited the blame cast upon it. ■ The Hon.. Mr Bonar seconded the motion,. The Hon. Colonel Kenny could not refrain from making a few remarks upon the practice which had become so prevalent of late of moving for, select committees to invastigate personal matters.He thought he might Bay for a period of nearly 20 years such an occurrence' had' never taken place in that Council It was only within the last two years committees of this kind had been called for. He disclaimed all intention of hostility to the hon. member who sought by this means to vindicate his personal reputation, still he could not refrain from condemning the course pursued o*f hon. members who had committed an indiscretion coming to that Council to have it investigated. As these indiscretions multiplied they would be so much taken up investigating them that the public business would be. actually neglected. He would draw the attention of the Council to the fact that, the indiscretion alleged against the hon. membbrrelated to a Tetter dated 29th August, 1871, and the hon. gentleman himself had only been elected to that Council in the month of June, 1872. He would ask was it either right or proper that that Council should be asked to investigato a transaction which took place ante, cedent to the member's election as a member of Council. He would only say thafhe thought a limit should be put to proceedings of that kind. Under all the circumstances of the case he felt very much disposed to move the previous question. The Hon. Mr Sewell pointed out that although the transaction to which the motion related had taken place before the Hon. Mr Lahraan had been called to a seat in the Council, the transaction which brought the matter before the public had taken place since his nomination. Under those circumstances, he argued, the Council was justified in entertaining the proposition. , . The Hon. Mr Stokes pointed out that although the raiastatement contained in the letter had been olearly established, Mr Lahman had not yet taken anysteps to correct the mistake. Under these circumstances he saw no reason whatever for the appointment of a select com- , mittee. • ) The Hon. Mr Mantell pointed out that in investigating the circumstances attending the dismissal of Mr Schaw the whole matter had been investigated by a select committtee. The first report was withheld to give Mr Lahman an opportunity of being heard, and it was not until he had been heard that the second report was presented. Under these circumstances he could see no reason for the appointment of a select committee. The whole thing had been already inquired , into by the Council, ,- ".-The. Hon. Mr Waterhouse objected to j the country being put to the expense of < these committees, Persons and papers j

would have to be brought from the West Coast, and tne-expenses would be something considerable. If the hon. member was prepared to bear th« costj then he (Mr Waterhouse) would not object to the motion. •■* The Hon. Mr Hall expressed" his opinion that a matter affecting the character'of an individual member of that Council was a matter which affected the Council, and which placed the character of the Council as a whole at stake. He said that it was the duty of the Council not to refuse the enquiry asked for. It had been stated in the course of the debate that the matter in question hadoccurred prior to the appointment of Mr Lahman as a member of Council. He would, however, point out that this was the first occasion on which attention had been publicly drawn to the matter, so that in reality this was the first opportunity he had had for. calling for an investigation. When the matter was before the select committee under Mr Schaw's petition, he would remind them that the committee was not appointed to enquire into Mr Lahman's conduct, consequently he (Mr Lahman) had not the same opportunity for entering upon a defence of his conduct. ■■:■..' A division took place, which resulted in the motion being carried by a majority of 23 to 5, • • . A ballot took place for the appointment of a committee, which resulted in the Hon . Messrs Acland, Waterhouse, Baillie, Miller, and Johnßton being elected.