The Globe. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1008, 18 September 1877, Page 2

The Globe. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1877.

A correspondent in this morning's Press, under the signature of •' Querist," draws attention to what cannot but be regarded as a singular instance of inconsistency of legislation. The recent election for city councillors has raised the point of disqualification as applied to some of the newly elected members, and on examining the Municipal Corporations Act and comparing it with the Disqualification Act we find the anomaly pointed out by " Querist.'] Under the first of these Acts —both of which, it may be noted, were passed during last session—certain persons are disqualified from acting as councillors of any borough._ Section 01, read with sub-section 4, is as follows : —" The following persons shall be incapable of being or of being elected to be councillors, that is to say, any person * * * * being concerned or participating (other than as a shareholder in a company or partnership consisting of more than twenty persons) in any contract with or work for the Council." It will thus be seen that the Legislature has exercised a very large amount of restrictive power to ensure purity as regards our Borough Councils. But let us look at the way in which the House deals with the same subject as applied to itself. One would suppose that the Assembly, being so much more important and the interests involved so much greater, that at least equal stringency would have been exercised. Section 7 of the Disqualification Act, 1876, provides that no person who shall supply goods for the service of the public shall be eligible for election as a member of the House of Eepresentatives while he continues to do so, or to receive any part of the emolument arising therefrom. But subsections 2 and 3 of clause 8 exempt any person from this disqualification where the contract has been made by an incorporated company consisting of more than seven persons, or any contract for which not more than fifty pounds is to be paid in any one financial year. Now we do not for one moment object to the stringency of the law as regards Municipal Councils ; on the contrary, we regard it as a wise provision. That is not the point in question. What we desire to point out is that in the one case —that is when dealing with themselves —the House has been far more lenient than in the other. We fail to see why this should be so. Surely if it is so desirable to ensure the purity of Borough Councils —and no one will deny this—how much more so is it that we should also be equally particular about our House of Eepresentatives. It is, therefore, difficult to see why the disparity should exist. So far as our experience of the New Zealand Legislature goes its members do not appear to have a very high opinion of each other. We have heard of honourable gentlemen calling each other swindlers, liars, &c, but such scenes are of unfrequent occurrence in our Municipal Council here. Indeed the House of Eepresentatives has not shewn itself so thoroughly pure as to dispense with equally stringent restrictions to those they have applied to Municipal Councils.

The municipal election just closed lias demonstrated very clearly the want that exists for some building in which l ""**tt.sact civic business. The pollto tx. ~ ,l^u, sday last was rendered "$ °? - - Officials a work alike to the voters* . * simply of difficulty and annoyan t j^_ arising from tlie absence of proper .. commodation. This is, however, a case which only occurs at intervals, but the ordinary routine of city business is also interrupted and the officers impeded in the discbar.ee of their duties by the wretched and totally insufficient offices in which they have to do their work. Any one who has had occasion to transact business with the town clerk will have a lively recollection of the little hutch into which the public have to go. When one ratepayer is there it is a matter of impossibility for another to get admission,, and the late*

comer has to wait patiently on the door mat until his turn arrives. As wo have before said, the whole building ia a disgrace to the city, and the time has now arrived when the citizens must recognise the fact that a building devoted to civic purposes is an urgent necessity. As the building will be of a permanent character, and also a city asset, *.t will be only fair that those who come after us should bear a share of the cost. Hence the expenditure might be by loan, which would not press hardly upon the ratepayers of the present, they only needing to find the interest and sinking fund. "We commend the matter to the serious consideration of the new City Council, in the hope that some practical steps will be taken towards remedying the evil complained of.