Greymouth Evening Star, AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1901. CIVIC ETIQUETTE

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 29 January 1901, Page 2

Greymouth Evening Star, AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1901. CIVIC ETIQUETTE

For a false assumption of virtue, an unbecoming display of personal animus and ignorance it would be difficult to excel the leaderette in this morning's Argus, calling in question the right of a Borough Councillor to read the proclamation. Our contemporary declares that in the absence of the Mayor “the Town Clerk was the proper person to read the proclamation,” that what was allowed “ was a gross breach of civic etiquette ” “to minister and pandor to an overweening vanity and unpardonable assumption,” and again the “uncouth waywardness of Mr. Petrie and his fellow councillors ” is made to do duty by the gentleman who in writing has shown such a fine display of lack of knowledge. It may be mentioned that the hitch originally occurred through it being put forward by the “ man in the street,” that in the absence of the Mayor, the County Chairman should read the proclamation. The idea, however, of bringing a Chairman of an outside body into a borough to read a proclamation to the ratepayers of that borough was found to be too ridiculous to be entertained, seeing moreover that the proclamation was addressed to the “ Mayor of Greymouth.” Then, urges our contemporary, the Town Clerk should, in the absence of the Mayor, have read the proclamation Just as well urge that the Town Clerk should take the Mayor’s seat at the Council table, debate and vote, as if he wore an elected member. The Town Clerk is not the representative of the Mayor; he is the paid officer of the council, and has just as much right to take the Mayor’s position as Mr Seddon’s private secretary has to go to the Hon. Mr Ward and say “Get down out of that, in the absence of the Premier, I take his place.” The positions are exactly parallel. It is not denied by even our contemporary that had Mr Mathieson been here it would have been correct for him to read the proclamation. Now the Municipal Act provides for the absence of the Mayor, clause 40 stating that “ Should the Mayor be absent from the borough, or should he at any meeting of the Council announce his intention to be so absent, or should he be ill, the Council may, if it thinks fit, appoint one of its members to act as Deputy Mayor during the time of such absence or illness who, during such time, and until the Mayor re-

turns to the borough or notifies the Town Clerk in writing under his hand of the fact of his recovery from illness, may do all acts of the Mayor as such might do, except act as a Justice of the Peace, unless such Deputy is himself a Justice.” Now, this whs what was done by the Council, and the acting-Mayor read, as was proper, and in strict accord with civic etiquette, the proclamation. But our contemporary proceeds, in order to attempt the all but too transparent object, to declare that jealousy was displayed at the meeting as to who should read the proclamation. This is just as foundationless as the rest of our contemporary’s contentions. Mr Petrie, who ■was the only Councillor proposed, stated he had no desire to read the document, and was prepared to give way to anyone. Our contemporary is to be pitied more than blamed. Upon the foundation of a vacuum he built a superstructure of misconception and entwined around it vines of personal animus. Unfortunately, the proverbial house of cards is stable and strong in comparison. The fabric fell before it left the hands of the builder, and the builder now-stands forth a ridiculous object for pity and commiseration.