[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
shall be grateful if you will be good enough to afford me the opportunity of replying briefly to one or two points in Mr. Gaskoin's letter which appeared on July 7th, and was obviously written under very considerable misapprehension in regard to certain matters with which it purports to deal.
The assertion that " The brief annual general meeting of the R.S.P.C.A. last Thursday comprised relatively few constitutionally minded members. For both parties in the High Court suit had. sanctioned an adjournment of the meeting "cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged, as the natural inference intended to be drawn therefrom is that only those members.who were in favour of the abortive motion to adjourn the meeting were " constitutionally minded " and that those who opposed the same and carried on the business were not.
It would appear that Mr. Gaskoin has lost sight of the fact that whatever arrangement was made by counsel for the plaintiff in his individual capacity could under no circum- stances be held to bind the other members of the Society. The chairman of the Council has no right, as such to take the chair at meetings of the Society and there can be no doubt that the members present at any meeting may proceed to the election of a chairman on each occasion.
It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the cause of the " current controversies " is to be found—not in the alleged " unconstitutional mindedness " of a " fractional minority "—but in a series of unconstitutional acts on the part of the Council themselves, as not only have they failed to recognize -that upon the true construction of the rules it is the Society and not the Executive who must be omnipotent, but have in a number of instances arrogated to themselves powers which they do not possess, inasmuch as (inter alia) resolutions duly passed at meetings of the Society have been disregarded, members duly elected to the Council have not been allowed-to take their seats, and resolutions forwarded for discussion at the annual general meeting have been rejected, in spite of the undoubted fact that they were matters of importance and general interest.
It cannot, therefore, be wondered at if members of the Society feel deep resentment at the arbitrary manner in which they are treated by their elected representatives, and I am consequently in complete agreement with the hope expressed in Mr. Gaskoin's letter that " the great mass of honest sober, plain-minded R,S.P.C.A. members may be roused to wipe off for ever from, the Society its present reproach—that unscrupu- lous and turbulent faction fighting is its leading characteristic " by insisting upon full inquiry and frank discussion respecting .". current controversies."
It is common knowledge that the society is at present passing through a most critical period in its history—already there are rumours of impending resignations, cessation of annual subscriptions, revocation of legacies, formation of a rival society, militant tactics, further litigation—all of which may be prevented by a less unreasonable and unsympathetic treatment of those members who are at heart no less loyal or " constitutionally minded " than Mr. Gaskoin.—I am, Sir,
H. W. WALLIS GRAIN.
New Court, Temple, B.C. 4. ,
Previous page
