The Daily Telegraph. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1883.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3802, 21 September 1883, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1883.

In a late number of Truth a story is retold of an old English Act of Parliament_ that dealt with sheep stealing. It was said of one of tho Judges that, having read the Act three times very carefully, he delivered the opinion that ho was uncertain whether the penalties attached to the owner of tho shoo]), the thief, or to the sheep that was stolen. No wonder that the '' uncertainties of law " have passed into a proverb. And now we have another puzzler from no less an authority than Mr Travers on the reading of the Municipal Corporations Act. A special meeting of the Wellington Borough Council was convened last Monday by direction of the Mayor to consider Cr. Maginnity's written notice of resignation as handed in by him at a meeting held on the previous Friday. The City Solicitor (Mr Travers) was asked on Saturday for his opinion as to whether the office became vacant on the written notice of resignation being received. Mr Travers replied by stating tho law thus:—" I am of opinion that a resignation per sc docs not vacate the office of a Town Councillor, oven assuming that the power to resign is given by implication under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1876. There must, in order to make a resignation complete, bo an acceptance of it by the Council, at a meeting duly convened. Unless, therefore, the resignation of Councillor Maginnity has been accepted by the Council, by resolution entered in the minutes, I am of opinion that you arc not justified in treating his office as vacant." If Mr Travers is right in his interpretation of the law, all we can say is that of the many resignations of seats in our own Town Council not one has been accepted in accord • ance with tho Act. But we clo not happen to agree with Mr Travers. That eminent solicitor does not seem from his letter to be quite certain whether tho Act allows a councillor to resign Ins seat at all, for he says, '' even assuming that the power to resign is given by implication under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1876." Now, In the fourth section of tho Act "an extraordinary vacancy is interpreted to mean a vacancy arising from death, resignation, incapacity, &c, on a day not fixed by the Act. And it goes on to say that a resignation must be in writing signed by the person resigning, and delivered to tho Mayor or Town Clerk. To the mind of an ordinary layman the above directions to a councillor desirous of retiring from the cares of municipal state would appear to bo clear enough. But confusion of language is clear to the soul of a lawyer, hence we must only "assume," not state ac a downright j positive fact, that it is within the power of a councillor to retire into private life prior to tho vacancy of his seat by effluxion of I time. However that may be, the Wollingr ton Council held a special meeting for tho consideration of Cr. Maginnity's resignation, and, though that gentleman had changed his mind and had withdrawn his resignation, the Council by a majority of one declared tho seat vacant. We have yet to learn whether this decision will be set on one side as illegal in consequence of the notice of tho meeting not having been served on councillors two clear days before the meeting was held. Mr Travers, however, is by no means singular in his opinion concerning tho ambiguity of the Act in the matter of the retirement of a councillor. The Wellington Post points out that in the bill to consolidate the various Municipal Corporations Acts was a clause enabling city councillors to resign their office. The Statutes Revision Commissioners, in their notes to the bill they had drafted, pointed out that the power of resignation, although impliedly existing under the Act, was not explicitly provided, I

and they suggested that this should be done. It may seem a matter of course, says our contemporary, that a Councillor should be able to resign his office when he may choose to do so, but this is by no means necessarily 'the case. It does not follow that a person who has undertaken an office of trust shall be permitted to relinquish and divest himself of all its attendant responsibility whenever this latter becomes irksome and risky. Apparently, however, the resignation of city councillors was contemplated in the Act, although not expressly sanctioned, and the new clause in the Consolidation Bill containing this sanction will no dobnt be readily passed when lion, members can find time to attend to tho business for which they are paid by the country. Meanwhile the Act has to be carried out aa it stands, and it will be remembered that a few years ago an immense amount of trouble was created by the resignation of Councillor Mills, the City Solicitor advising tho Council that no councillor could legally resign. The same difficulty has cropped up again in reference to the resignation of Councillor Maginnity. The letter of the law does not authorise his withdrawal from official responsibilities. He could render his seat vacant by absentin o- himself from four consecutive meetings of the Council, but that would have the effect of leaving his ward unrepresented for nearly three months, not at all a dc.sirnblo thing. It seems, however, to be tacitly understood that if a councillor tenders his resignation in writing, and if that is ratified by a resolution of the Council and recorded in the minutes, the scat may be practically treated as vacant notwithstanding the lack of any statutory authority for this course.