Correspondence, Notes, etc.



5i



Society ; and I submit that in the alteration of one or two of the rules

hitherto governing it, they infringed on the prerogative of the general body

of the members.


I am more particularly concerned with the ruleiwhicli has practically

placed the election of the Council in the hands of the existing members of

that body. To me it appears somewhat “ Gilbertian ” that members

originally elected to serve on the Council for a specific term, should proceed

to alter the conditions of their tenure of office without reference to the

members of the Society, and this is my reason for using the term

“ unconstitutional methods.”


That I am not far wrong is evidenced by the remarks of a learned

Judge in a case before the High Courts recently. Where the Directorate of

some Company had inter alia enlarged their term of office without the

sanction of the shareholders. I forget the exact circumstances, but I

remember at the time I read it, I concluded there was a parallel in the case

in point.


I further wish to express my regret that the Committee should have

bracketed two names of candidates for election on the voting paper issued

with the October number, with the note, “recommended by the Council.”

This to me appears to be a violation of the traditions governing a vote by

ballot, and I am sure it would have been in better taste had the paper

contained nothing but the names of candidates in alphabetical order.


In conclusion I wish it to be clearly understood that in writing the

foregoing I have been entirely uninfluenced by the personal element which

too often enters into a discussion of this nature. And I shall be glad if my

letter is published in our next journal with a view of testing the feelings

of the members on the question of principle involved by the Council’s

action. Archibald Simpson.



The Ho?i. Business Secretary's Reply.


Sir, —Your letter received this morning. I am sorry you think

that the Council have acted unconstitutionally in altering the rule re¬

garding the election of that body. I should like to point out to you that

the Council were only acting in accordance with Rule 11 (on the copy

enclosed).


You will see that Rule 9, paragraph 2, does not fix the term of office

at one or even two years, but allows two years to pass without an election,

and when that election does take place, does not exclude the existing

Council from another term of office.


The Rule as amended last June makes provision for at least two of

the Council being new every year, thus giving members a greater chance of

showing their approval or disapproval of the existing Council by voting

either for the Council’s nominees or proposing different candidates. This



