The Globe. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1878.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1504, 11 December 1878, Page 2

The Globe. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1878.

Without wishing to enter into the discussion of the personal questions raised by Dr. Foster's letter to the Mayor, there are one or two points of interest to the ratepayers upon which we desire to make a few comments. These have reference to the loss to the city revenue in two instances, through the disregard of plain statutory duty, of certain sums of money. In both cases, until the publication of Dr. Foster's letter, it was not known positively—though pretty shrewd guesses were made—who was responsible for the blunders whereby the ratepayers' money had been wasted. On this the letter referred to throws some light, and we purpose putting the facts before our readers, with a view of showing the necessity for re-organisation in the staff of city officials, a necessity which was also felt by the members of the late Council. First then, as to the now celebrated Carter's lane difficulty. The Council find themselves in a dilemma with regard to this matter, inasmuch as the provisions of the Act —clearly and plainly laid down—have been disregarded by the official who acts as the executive of the Council. In his wisdom this gentleman has seen fit to constitute himself an authority above the law as made by the Legislature, and the consequence is a loss to tho city of £125 odd. Not only is' the duty of the official referred to set forth with unmistakeable clearness in the section of the Act, but the very words of the motion acceding to the request of the residents are " subject to the provisions of the Act." The Act provides that notice must be given to the residents prior to the work being done, but this was entirely ignored, and no notices were served until nearly eight months after the work of channelling had been completed. Under what authority the town clerk ignored the provisions of the statute we are uuable to say. The legal adviser of tho Council distinctly avers that he was never consulted, indeed he goes further, and points out that the whole complication has arisen from the disregard by tho town clerk of the express provisions of the Act. Not alone is this the case, but a specific resolution of the Council has been also disregarded by the official whose duty it is to carry the decisions of that body into effect. The resolution acceding to the request of the petition of the residents of Carter's lane distinctly says " subject to the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act." Nothing could be plainer. The provisions of the Act, as we have shown, are that notices shall be served prior to the work being done, and printed forms in conformity with this section are in the office of ,the town clerk. But that gentleman, for reasons best known to himself, usurping the functions of City Council and city solicitor, did not do what tho law and the resolution of tho Council plainly set forth he should do, and tho result is the loss of a considerable sum of money to the ratepayers. Tho law has been broken, and the Council are unable to enforce the payment of any contribution towards the work done. The letter of Dr. Foster further enlightens us upon another expensive freak on the part of the Town Clerk in connection with the Triangle right-of-way. In this case, again, not only was the money of the ratepayers lost as regards the work done, but the further expense of law costs was added thereto. This is, to a great extent, a repetition of the Carter's lane fiasco. Tho Act distinctly states that notices shall be served upon owners, whereas the occupiers only were served. For this, again, tho Town Clerk must be held responsible. He is the executive officer of tho Council, through whom and by whom tho details of tho Act are carried out. His duty in this case was quite as plain as we have shown it to have been in that of Carter's lane, and yet here again wo find the Act disregarded. Tho Town Clerk, in two cases, ignores tho Act, and the ratepayers have to pay tho piper. Such a stato of things is, to use the mildest possible term, exceedingly unsatisfactory, and, in the interosts of the ratepayers, should bo put an end to at once. The public will agree with us that somo alteration is necessary in the mode of conducting the city business, when such a glaring disregard of tho law is shown by one of tho officials. Had thoro been any ambiguity about the section, if there was any nice point as to the serving of those notices, the laches of tho Town Clork might have boon excusable. But it i 3 not so. Tho languago of tho Act is clear, and tho courso of procedure laid down unmistakoablo. Therefore, it can ouiy be concludod that tho Town Clork in his wisdom considered his opinion superior to tho Logislaturo, and acted accordingly. In dealing with private business this may be all very well, as the person who has such confidence in his own wisdom has to pay tho cost. But when tt comes to discharging a public duty the matter becomes very different. Thoro is, then, no excuse for the exercise of individual opinion on matters settled by statute. The duty of the officer is dollued with clearness, and uuder no circumstances ?s ho authorised in departing therefrom. With the Act and the distinct constitution of the Couucil before him tho Town Clork had but ono courso to pursue, viz., to issue the required notices according to law. This he choso, howover, to igiicro in tho two cases wo havo referred to, and tho result is that the city revonuo suffers to a considerable extent. If tho Town Clerk is to bo allowed to disregard both the law and the resolutions

of the Council thero appears to be little use in the latter considering matters such as these at all. With the facts now before them the citizens can but come to the conclusion that the re-organisation of the staff proposed by Mr. Ruddenklau in the late Council was a wise and salutary measure.

The time is out of joint, at least so far as our corporations are concerned, and, what a cursed spite, indeed, it is, to try to set it, and them, right. The readers of the altercations that are expected, and punctually take place at every meeting of the City Council, are sufficiently disgusted at the waste of time and talk which, on these occasions, has become notorious, and which, through the public prints, they are to a certain extent made acquainted with. But there never is a tithe of the nonsense reported that consumes the time of such meetings. What, then, must be the agonies endured by the unfortunates who are compelled to listen to the rodomontade and rubbish emitted by Crs. Brown, Smith, and Co. on every possible and impossible opportunity ? The question can only be answered by a shudder of terror and pity for the sufferers. But in our joint stock management, alias popular government, there are deeper depths still. The " talks " that come off periodically about the affairs of various " Boards" seems to be synonomous with what in America are called free fights. The last few days has given us, for illustrative purposes, a quantity to choose from. With a promise to attend to the rest, by and by, we will at present pass all but the transactions of the Hospital and Charitable Aid Board at their meeting last night, which seems to call for a few remarks. We have no intention to twit the members with the acrimonious language with which at times they chose to express their opinions, neither would, we for a moment say that the rudeness of many of their retorts, each way, was not the proper thing to do; far from it. Whether the house surgeon is to debar strawberries, or the House Steward is to forbid braid, is a matter of very little consequence to us or the public. Our concern just now is to inquire what the requirements are that an Hospital may be expected to supply. Different opinions are held by people on almost every question, andjrightly; eontradiction leads to perfection, buc the opinions held by the Chairman, and endorsed by the Board, on this point, are, we hope, as singular as they are peculiar. He suggested " that a circular should be sent to all the surgeons in the province, pointing out that the hospital was only for those persons who had no homes, and could not pay. It was resolved that the chairman should draw up a short circular by the next meeting." When it is considered that hospitals in the old countries are eagerly chosen by the greatest physicians and surgeons in the world as fields for the gratuitous exhibition of their skill, it can well be believed that sufferers of all classes flock to these institutions to gain advantages that cannot be purchased elsewhere for any amount of money. The privilege has never been denied anyone, so far as the capacity of the houses would allow, and it is a fact that large numbers of patients of independent means are treated constantly In the most renowned establishments of this kind in the world. Of course they pay for it, and by so doing they confer a benefit as well as being served themselves. After things have righted themselves in our rough and ready country, there is no doubt that, amongst other things, Hospitals will find out their proper functions as schools for the profession, as receptacles for the suffering poor, and as the resource of wealthier patients who do not prefer their money to their life, and who cannot obtain by any expenditure the same skilful treatment elsewhere. If we are wrong in our conclusions, the above sermon is quite impertinent, but if it is the other way, it is time the Hospital Board bethink (themselves as regards themselves), and find a chairman who knows what the usess of an Hospital really are.