The Globe. MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1879.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1577, 10 March 1879, Page 2

The Globe. MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1879.

There is a very serious question in connection with the management of our city affairs to which wo wish to call attention. It is well known that the extreme slowness with which tho city works aro often carried out causes the greatest possible inconvenience to residents. There is evidently something defective in the arrangements. Either tho length of time given to contractors is unreasonable or contractors do not keep their time. Wo have the best reasons for thinking that the latter is too often the case, and also for believing that the penalties to which they thereby render themselves liable have boon too frequently remitted by the Council that may happen to be in power. Lot us us examine this matter closely because it is one of tho greatest importance involving tho whole question as to whether the ratepayers' affairs are to be conducted on definite business principles, or on a happy-go-lucky system which leaves numerous openings for sinister influences. Taking tho most cheerful view of cas.-s which may occur whore penalties aro not enforced and what inference must be drawn? Why this —that tho works for which ratepayers put their hands into their pockets aro not carried on with that onorgy and precision which tho ratepayers have a right to expect. A contractor working under tho impression that, should ho be behind time no evil results will occur, will conduct himself in a far different manner from tho contractor, who is awaro that he will be bound by the terms of his contract. In tho first caso tho impression that tho terms of his contract aro so much waste paper must produce, on all but a few exceptional men, a fooling of slovenly ease which will result in tho work being improperly carried out. So that not only will the public bo inconvenienced by the necessary improvements being behind time, but, far from tho oxtension in time producing superior workmanship, tho contrary will bo found to bo tho caso. That is to say tho public who pays, is, in two ways, damnified because th o Council to which i t looks to energetically carry out municipal matters, chooses to place tho interest of tho contractor before that of its constituents. In order that the public may have a chance of seeing how the matter roally stands, wo would suggest to the Council that a return be laid on its table showing the cases in which contractors have laid themselves open to penalties, the number of instances in which tho penalties have been enforced, and the amount to which they have been enforced, and lastly, in cases of nonenforcement, the reasons for such nonenforcement. Such a return would either remove a growing impression that contractors are not kept up to the mark, or it would show that a state of things exists in respect to which the public lias a right to demand an explanation. It is one of the worst possible forms of local government for a body such as tho Council, from any conceivable reason whatsoever, to allow its constituents to suffer because it has not sufficient energy or moral courage to cast aside all considerations but the public welfare, and fearlessly do its duty by those whom wo may call its employers. It is inconceivable that municipal or political influences can induco men, in whom the citizens have shown by their votes that they have confidence, to act in matters touching tho welfare of the city in a different manner from that in which they would act in their own private affairs, and wo do not wish to allogo that such a state of things is in force; but it is natural that ths ratepayers, who feel aggrieved by tho neglect to which wo refer, should seek for some probable reason for it. It is, therefore, right that the Council should clear itself of any possible imputation of being willing to sacrifice the comfort of their constituents to the convenience or profit of contractors. Tho good-will of tho former is a far more legitimate object of civic ambition than the latter. The Council holds the position of an agent entrusted with the money of tho citizens, and it is its bounden duty, not only to give such care to that trust as each individual member of tho Council would bestow on his own property, but to give a far greater care, in such proportion as any trust is more sacred than any property held personally. If the ratepayers are sacrificed, on any consideration whatsoever, they have just grounds for feeling seriously aggrieved. A return such as we have suggested would show the real state of the case. It is one which the Council should bo eager to produce.