LEGAL SKIRMISH

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 285, 22 February 1928, Page 13

LEGAL SKIRMISH

CIVIC WASTE INQUIRY SOLICITORS EXCHANGE LETTERS The request for a commission of inquiry into the allegations of civic waste and extravagance, known as the Murray charges, has now been forwarded to the Prime Minister. The request is accompanied by a copy of the evidence already taken, and the hope has been expressed that the commission will be granted, whether the Prime Minister thinks the material submitted sufficient or not. At a special meeting of the Finance Committee of the council, Mr. J. Stanton was requested to draft a letter to Mr. F. D. McLive.r, counsel to Cr. Murray, to which the following reply has been received:

I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 13th inst., the contents of which I have noted. Pressure of business has with your kindly concurrence hitherto prevented me from giving attention to same. You admit that on the two occasions that were arranged with you for a discussion of the matter you were unable to keep the first appointment and compelled to leave before the object of the second one had been attained. You make a lot of general and immaterial statements and personally I see no good reason in discussing same; but I feel compelled to state that T notice with extreme regret that the spirit of antagonism which to my mind at least was displayed by the committee toward my client permeates the whole of your letter to me, and. having no intention or desire of entering into any acrimonious correspondence, I shall deal with certain parts of your letter only. You state that it was neither the value nor the significance of the evidence presented to the council which weighed with you in suggesting to Mr. Chairman Dempsey the appointment of a commission. I sincerely trust that the council and the chairman of the committee who decided upon a commission were actuated by different reasons from those which appear to have affected your personal judgment. The facts adduced to the committee were of extreme value and must have had a particular significance to your trained mind. . . . . I cannot agree that the members of the committee who heard, and appreciated the consequence of, that evidence could think otherwise. Mr. Chairman Dempsey, who, at your instigation on the 19th ulto in a minute to the council suggested that the council should ask for a judicial commission, cannot have taken that view, for then the appointment of the commission would be purely waste of time and of the ratepayers’ money. . However, there is nothing to be gained in further stressing this point, excepting to say that anyone who is prepared to read the evidence already submitted can himself see the necessity of the appointment of a definite tribunal to deal with it—but at the expense of the council. In my letter to you of the 9th inst.. I again invited definite suggestions in regard to the “charges,” as you are pleased to call them. Your reply is interpreted as an evasion. You heard a considerable amount of the evidence and although in possession of many facts you yourself have been unable to submit anything more definite than what has already been offered. You state in vour letter that my client has taken the responsibility of impugning the administration of a public body and the characters of members and officials of that body. I know of nothing to justify this excursion of yours into the realms of fiction. You also state that my client may be asked to pay the whole costs of the commission. As you are aware, and as I have previously stated, Mr. Murray was one of a committee set up in August last by the council to investigate on behalf of the council certain of its activities and Mr. Murray, in the course of his duty and of the proper fulfilment of the request of the council, obtained certain information, the material part of which has since been placed before the committee. Having obtained the information as a member of the council and as a member of the special committee and as an agent for and on behalf of the other members of the council, and having obtained same at the request of the council and obviously in discharge of his duty to the other members of the council and the ratepayers in general, he placed these i facts before the committee as requested. In doing so, and let me repeat as the agent for and on behalf of the council, he has now been submitted to provocatir n designed to invoke his antagonism to the body corporate and is being threatened with the possibility of being mulcted in the costs r f the judicial commission. The council, in its discharge of its obviously plain duty to the ratepayers, resolved unanimously on January 19 to ask that the Government appoint a commission. To ask any one councillor to foot the bill is alike obviously Improper. If a member of a public body is to be threatened with the heavy cost of the commission because he, at the request of the council, tells something which he was asked to ascertain, then the threat can only be interpreted as a gag to prevent any disclosure of something which, in the interests of the ratepayers, should be made public. Or. Murray is not impugning the character of anyone. Finally let it be clearly understood that my client on my advice* will not assume any financial responsibility whatever in respect of the proposed commission, but I trust that this will not be used as an excuse for any evasion by it of its plain responsibility to the public. Yours faithfully, F. D. McLIVER. MR. STANTON S REPLY To this letter Mr. Stanton has replied as follows: j I duly received yours of yesterday’s date herein, but a perusal of it suggests That you have nor. read my previous J letter with any care. I cannot agree that T havp made the admission set out in your second para-

graph, nor that any spirit of antagoni>m toward your client permeates my letter. I might traverse in detail all the stat* - ments arid contentions in your letter, bur think it sufficient to say that I disagree v/ith them in all material particulars. As already intimated to you, the council has definitely decided fco ask for appointment of a commission ana tn is request will go forward at once and with it a copy of your memorandum of December 10, of this present correspondence and of the “evidence** already given. so doing you will, cf course, understand that the council does not concur in the condition you seek to impose, name!' . that the council shall in any event b c r the costs; its position on this matter s as set out in my previous letter to you. J. STANTON City Solicitor.