MR GEORGE SIMMONS AND THE BOROUGH COUNCIL.

Kumara Times, Issue 1477, 22 June 1881, Page 2

MR GEORGE SIMMONS AND THE BOROUGH COUNCIL.

[to the editor.] Sir—l will not insult you by supposing for a moment that you are the author of the (rais)-leading article in last night’s issue, for after a lot of gag to fill up, it goes on to misquote clause 61 of the “ Municipal Corporations Act” by saying that any person not enrolled in respect of rateable property is incapable of being a councillor.” On reading this clause, I find it consists entirely of personal disqualifications not property ones. I also fail, on looking over the “ Municipal Corporations Act,” to find any clause wherein it is stated that a councillor after being legally elected should resign his seat because he is struck off the roll. If this was the case (which I don’t think the spirit of the Act ever intended it should be) it would give too much power into the hands of any unscrupulous valuator who may hold other offices of profit under the Council ; for instance, a councillor may be elected by a large majority of the ratepayers for three years, and by trying to do his best for the interests of the Borough, be may not suit the valuator, &c., who could then strike him off the roll unless he chose to show his deeds. Such things have been done. At the same time his friends, or those who suit the valuator, with the same property title, will not be asked to do anything of the kind. The writer goes on to give his opinion unasked while pretending to wait for the Borough Solicitor’s. This shows very little taste, as the press is supposed to represent the opinions of the people. The style of diction in the article has the appearance of hinting to the Borough

Solicitor which way (the Act is being capable of being read both ways) his opinion is wanted by the writer to go. Apologising for troubling you so much— I remain-, yours, respectfully, George Simmons. *Kumara, June 22nd, 1881. [We give Mr Simmons space to air his grievance, although we should have been better pleased if he had not been quite so uncomplimentary towards us in his introductory remarks, and also if he had omitted to refer to personal matters (which ought to have been forgotten long ago) and kept to the question at issue. The meeting of the Borough Council took place last Thursday evening, and, after hearing the motion of Councillor Campbell, we immediately looked up the Acts and found that he (Cr. Campbell) was, in onr opinion, justified in the course he was pursuing ; for if Mr Simmons is taking part illegally in the business of the Council, all the proceedings of the Council so irregularly done in matter of form will have to be validated by the Governor, at least, so says one clause of the Act, and gazetted and publicly notified. It is evident, therefore, that there should be no loss of time in ascertaining and deciding what Mr Simmons' status is in the Council. We waited two or three days before we gave expression to our convictions, lest we should, as Mr Simmons surmises, pos« sibly prejudice the legal opinion about to be given j and when we thought there was reasonable time for a reply, then, and not till then, we ventured our remarks, because in the interests of the public it is desirable that no man should for a moment invalidate the proceedings of the Council and waste councillors' time. Whether our interpretation of the Acts be right or wrong, and in conformity with the Borough Solicitor's, or not, we considered it our duty to the public to urge the immediate settlement of the question. We certainly look forward with very great interest to the Borough Solicitor's forthcoming opinion on the matter in question, but we wash our hands of any intention to bias that opinion.—Ed. K.T.]