The Kumara Times. Published Every Evening. THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1880.

Kumara Times, Issue 1111, 22 April 1880, Page 2

The Kumara Times. Published Every Evening. THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1880.

Through the medium of our contemporary the West Coast Times a wellknown resident of this town, one George Simmons, yesterday favored the public with a series of most unfounded and unwarrantable charges against the municipal body and the Town Clerk of this Borough. After drawing attention to our refusal to publish one of his communications while the subject matter was under investigation, this unblushing exponent of alleged personal grievances goes on to say : —-

In this case I call upon the public or that part of the public who have followed and made themselves acquainted with each succeeding act as the case has progressed, to become judges between myself and the Borough Council. The evidence that has now been placed before them, proves without the least contradiction, Ist, That a premediated and wilful attempt was made by the Town Clerk to use the powers and authority of the Borough, to obtain a singular object which he would have gained had he succeeded in his attempt in keeping my name off the Burgess 8011, 2nd, That, in compliance with an order" of the Council, and to justify his conduct in the eyes of the

members, be brought up a report, the greater part of which was incorrect. 3rd, That although tins Council elected a committee to investigate the allegation contained in my letter, the Town Clerk cunningly worded the minutes relating thereto, the intended plan, mode, and object of the inquiry. 4th, and lastly (but not half I should refer to, hut to conclude this letter) that the committee although they have held or supposed to have held this meeting of inquiry, have not considered the allegation contained in my petition or any part thereof, their verdict being nothing more than a subterfuge and a farce.

Where, we would ask, is the evidence that has been placed before the public that, without fear of contradiction, proves all these erroneous assertions of Mr Simmons’? Even allowing every latitude for the stretch of the imaginative powers of Mr Simmons, we can hardly for one moment suppose that the petition he presented to the Council (and which we published in our columns) is alluded to and intended to be taken as unreliable evidence that his allegations are in accordance with fact, truth, and honesty of purpose. When the identical petition to which we refer was, a short time ago, brought before the Council, in which petition Mr Simmons made some grave charges against one of the officers of that body, the Council appointed a committee to investigate the grounds of complaint, which they subsequently did, and in their report thereon (adopted by the Council as a whole) they completely exonerated the valuerfrom the charges preferred against him. Of the gentlemen who formed this committee—Messrs Pearn, Campbell, Blake, and O’Hagan—little need be said, as their names are alone a sufficient guarantee that in conducting an inquiry ol this nature, it would be performed in a conscientious and impartial manner. On this point, however, Mr Simmons appears far from satisfied; hence his emphatic, though plainly annoyed assertion of their “ verdict being nothing more than a subterfuge and a farce.” That Mr Simmons, as a citizen, has a perfect right to complain against any act of injustice perpetrated by the Borough Council or their officers, we do hot for an instant deny; but that Mr Simmons is to constitute bimself judge and jury in cases in which he also figures as chief prosecutor cannot for one moment be tolerated, although the tenor of bis communication to our contemporary appears strongly impregnated with an idea of that character..