The Globe. TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1878.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1246, 5 March 1878, Page 2

The Globe. TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1878.

Our evening contemporary is anxious to convict the Finance Committee of the City Council of misconduct of some kind, but is apparently not very particular about the actual nature of the charge. We gather from his remarks during the last few days that those gentlemen have not acted in connection with the rate roll to his satisfaction. This much is evident. But whether their sin is one of omission or commission is not quite so clear. We understand of course that they have, in his opinion, been guilty of not discovering the discrepancy between the valuation of the city for the year 1877 and 1878 soon enough, that they have not read the comments of our contemporary upon the subject. But what then ? Even granting that the Committee ought to have known all about the difference between the rolls some weeks earlier than they did, should their action have been different P Had they taken action before the 7th of February, two courses were no doubt open to them to pursue, Thuy might have acted as they have done, or they might have proceeded under clause 18, and objected to the whole of the valuation list. Our contemporary is of opinion thftt they should have taken the latter course. He is entitled to hold any opinion he chooses, but some proof is surely necessary before the public adopt the same view. Had the Council proceeded under clause 18 of the Rating Act, and objected to the whole valuation, what would have been the result ? The Act is not very clear on this point. But evidently the work would have to he all done over again. This would mean several mouths of delay and additional expense to the ratepayers. By taking the course they have done, no delay is caused, and if these objections we upheld, the general body of ratepayers will be the gainers. In a letter published elsewhere Mr Briggs points out that the number .of objections lodged by the Council is 592, whereas the number of assessments on the roll is 3,280, In ft large majority of cases the Council agree with the reductions made by Mr Cuff. Had they objected to the whole of the valuation list, they would have been guilty of a great waste of public funds. The Star thinks .differently. Our contemporary is of opinion that they took the wrong course, but he does not tell us why he thinks so. Although several aitfclea have appeared in his columns on the question, he gets no further than the assertion that in.*' our opinion ” the Council took the wrong course. But assertion is not proof, and until something more trustworthy than the opinion of our contemporary is put forth, we suspect that the great body of the ratepayers will be quite satisfied with the action of the Council. Another point Raised is the treatment of the City Valuator by the officers of the Council. In one of our morning .contemporaries, a letter from Mr. Cuff appeared in which he said:— Early in November, 1877,1 was appointed City Valuer for this y>ar, and one would naturally suppose that, being for the time a city officer, 1 should be allowed all information and data the Council possessed to make as good a valuation as possible ; but, instead of that, the valuation of last year was sealed up, end all the officers of the Council were instructed by .the town clerk in no way to assist or give any information to the assessor, thereb) giving him a fair start to gather up information which had taken years to acquire as best he could.

One would gather from the above passage that every obstacle had been put in Mr Cuff's way, that he had been laboring uudar the greatest difficulty in the preparation of the roll, yet what are the facts of the case, as explained in the letter which we publish elsewhere. Mr Briggs says

'J'he assessment roll of 1877 was not denied to Mr Ci\k i but was copied by that gentle* man's cler K . w &h the exception of the money column- y° v for fcb» raaiojj why the valua* atico ffw withheld. So much dimtiefoctjbu the W 7 rv#

Finance Committee, in drawing up the rough specification upon which to call for tenders for the 1878 Till nation, decided not to allow the valuator to see the 1877 roll at all; but, on ihe suggestion of no other person than Mr Cuff himself, afterwards agreed to let the valuator have the benefit of ail the information contained in the roll, except the money column, which ho said would be of no rise to him.

We wonder what answer will Mr. Cuff give to the above statement? He has endeavoured to appear before the public in the character of an ill-nsed man, who has been performing an important public duty under the greatest difficulty. It now appears that Mr. Cuff’s sympathisers were labouring under a great mistake. Instead of being thwarted by the Council’s officers, he had every assistance ho required and every facility rendered to him. Nor has lie been slow to make the best use of those advantages. On the roll sent in by him appear the names of numbers who have ceased to occupy the properties for which they are rated. Yet it was Mi*. Cuff’s duty to see that the names inserted on the roll by him were correct, instead of in so many instances following the list of last year.