THE Evening Star. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1869.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1996, 28 September 1869, Page 2

THE Evening Star. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1869.

OUK City Council has its two parties, notwithstanding the smallness of its numbers, and they assume more of a personal than public character. This is at any rate a prima facie argument against small Councils. It has usually been supposed that a small number is more manageable tban a large one, and that although the received maxim is, “ In the multitude of councillors there 11 is wisdom,” there may he too many for effective work. This, however, is certain, that in a small legislative body,

one self-willed, determined man, with a fixed and settled purpose, can frequently accomplish that which the sound judgment of the members themselves cannot altogether approve. This has been shown in the action taken by Mr Fish with regard to the appointment of the City Surveyor. We have no objection £o Mr Fish assuming the character of patron to any of the employes of the Corporation, and we can appreciate that firm personal friendship that will induce a man to risk popularity, for the sake of advancing the interests of one whom he deeply regards, and whom he can effectually help in the battle of life. But there is a limit beyond which no one ought to go, even in their friendly advocacy, and Mr Fish is liable to travel beyond it. We do not know whether we are to to attribute this to_ his impulsive energy, that ho sometimes allows himself to be led into the use of words that common courtesy and good breeding condemn ; nor admitting this to be the cause, whether that ought to be held sufficient excuse. Men in the position of City Councillor owe a duty to society which should load them to bo careful not to transgress those conventionalities which have boon found conducive to its well-being. It seems very strange that there should be one sort of good manners for conversation and another for speech-making, and that gi eater license is held to be excusable in that which is public when applied to an opponent, than in that which is private and social. But this seems to be the received idea of smartness in debate, nncl unfortunately the standard of courtesy in our City Council has not yet passed beyond it. Regarded in any light, such a low standard is detrimental to the interests of the City, oven when not immediately concerned on subjects where they are immediately involved, but when those interests may be seriously affected, party and party speech-making are out of place. We cannot think that the action of the Council in refusing to receive Mr M'Glashan’s protest will be generally approved by the citizens. We offer no opinion as to the merits of the gentleman who now holds the office of City Surveyor, For aught we know, his genius may be of a high ordex*, and he may be fully equal to every duty he is called upon to perform, notwithstanding the want of support given to him by the Council in the few clashings that have taken place between him and the Inspector of Works, At any I'ate, it must be very plain, that as that support was given to the Inspector of Works, who ought to be subordinate to the Surveyor, instead of to the Surveyor himself, whose decision ought to be final, there was good reason for the action taken by Mr M'Glashan to seek for applicants under the new arrangement, so that the highest talent attainable should be secured. It was by no means necessaxy that a change should have been made. We ai*e not aware that such a course was hinted at. Even Mr M'Glashan’s protest did not materially alter the position of affairs, as it could not alter the action of the majority, and we cannot see any just cause why it should not have been received. It was rejected on the most trivial technical (if we may use the word) grounds, bxxt as it contains the reason why he dissented from the action taken by the City Council, and as the ratepayers are deeply interested in the subject, we feel it a duty to them to give it in full, that they may be able to form a clear opinion of the proceedings of those to whom are entrusted the management of City affairs. We offer no further comment upon it, than saying that so temperately worded a document, setting forth the reasons for the course taken by the protestor, even if not literally correct, deserved more respectful treatment.

•< [copy.] Bcasrfns "of protest against resolution of Council ou that clause of the report from the Finance Committee in respect to the City Surveyorship. Ist. That the Council, having agreed by vote to adopt the first part of the clause affirming that “ the existing agreement with the present City Surveyor should be terminated,” and the Cduucil having thus decided, "it is held Jhat any new appointment cannot take place* except under danse 49, Part 11, of, the Bye-Laws, which declares that no appointment to any permanent office at the disposal of the Council shall take place until seven clear days’ notice shall have been given by advertisement in one or more newspapers circulating in the borough, inviting applications (hefia qualified candidates for the same. -

2nd. That, in a matter of so much importance as the permanent appointment of a City Surveyor with au increased salary, sufficient notice had not been given to consider the question ; and as no notice of motion had been tabled to hfio effect that the appointment of Mr Mimms to that'office would be proposed, the Council were thereby precluded from giving the question the duo consideration it deserved.

3rd, That in a most important office, svich as the City Surveyor, the owners of City property aud ratepayers are entitled to see that, through their representatives in the City Council, the best means are adopted in acquiring the services of a competent party on whose talent apd judgment they can safely rely, and that this could best be done by adopting the latter part of the recommendation of the Finance Committee's repprt—viz,, by taking steps to advertise for fresh applications.

4th. That, for the reasons assigned, the resolution of the Council, as being ultra vires, should be expunged from the records of the Corporation. (Signed) Ed. M'Glashan, Councillor, Leith Ward. 15th September, 1869.