The Kumara Times. Published Every Evening. FRIDAY, JULY 1, 1881.

Kumara Times, Issue 1485, 1 July 1881, Page 2

The Kumara Times. Published Every Evening. FRIDAY, JULY 1, 1881.

Verily Borough Councils, or some of them at all events, are the most peculiar public bodies which exist on the face of the earth. The recent action of the “ City Fathers ” of Kumara serves admirably to illustrate this point. The proceedings at the ordinary meeting of this august body last evening were of such a nature as to raise doubts in the minds of all reasonable men concernin£r the necessity for the further existence of a corporation which is in such a thoroughly disorganised condition as that which has control over local matters in this town. A man who has a world-wide reputation of being remarkably wise, once said that “ in the multitude of councillors there is safety,” but among the multitude of counsellors who met at the Town Hall last jnight, there was nothing but confusion, and, on the part of • some, apparently a deliberate intention of ignoring the spirit and the fetter of the Act under which the Council is constituted. It may be remembered that not long since we devoted an article to the consideration of the question which had been raised as to the legal standing of Mr George Simmons in the Council. We did not arrive at a conclusion hastily, but after carefully going through the Act j and, comparing clause with clause, we unhesitatingly expressed the opinion that the gentleman in question was not in reality, a member of the Council. We quoted various sections of the Act in support of our views, and the arguments then used have never been controverted. The opinion of the Borough Solicitor was read last evening in the Council, and it is exactly in accord with what we had previously advanced. It is as follows : OPINION Re Mk. Geoeqe Simmons. In answer to question No. I.—l am of opinion that Mr Simmons is incapable of being a Councillor. Question No. 2.—1 am of opinion that this fact of itself causes an extraordinary vacancy if not disputed, but if disputed as in this case, proceedings under section 97 are necessary and proper. Take the case of incapacity from contracting. If the Councillor denies he is the contractor, who is to settle the question but the Resident Magistrate. Again, if Councillor Simmons refuses to leave the room, and the Mayor or any Councillor puts him out, and it should afterwards turn out he is not disqualified, he I rings his action at once ; whereas, if he is ousted of his office by judicial authority, that would fully justify his eviction by force if he refused to retire. As to question No. 3.—lf Councillor Simmons sits, and acts, he is liable to the penalties under section 63, but his incapacity must be proved before a court of law. Councillor Simmons may be relying on the amended Act of 1878, section 25, because there ai’e no such words as “ unless incapacitated, &c.” and he may think that he has a right to sit as long as Piei’son sat; but I think that contention is unsound. William Perkins. Chambers, « Werita street, Greymoutli, 20th June, 1881. How, after hearing such a care-fully-prepared and elaborate opinion

as this, and prepared to by a member of the legal profession who is second to none on the Coast, the Council could act in the way they did last evening, is one of those mysteries which ordinary minds find it impossible to fathom. It will be remembered that at the last meeting of the Council, a fortnight ago, Cr. Seddon suggested that Or. Campbell’s motion—“ That the Town Clerk be appointel to proceed under the ‘ Municipal Corporations Act,’ part clause 97, and summons before the Resident Magistrate’s Court in Kumara, George Simmons, sen., holding the office of Borough Councillor in the Borough of Kumara, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be adjudged to the ousted of the same, he having ceased to be a burgess, his name not being on the Burgess Roll ” —should stand over till the opinion of the Borough Solicitor on the question had been obtained. This suggestion was adopted without much, if any, discussion on the voices. Accordingly Cr. Campbell, in the most honorable manner and, as we believe, with the best intentions, anxious that the proceedings of the Council should not be vitiated by the act of any man illegally sitting as a member thereof, after the opinion of the Borough Solicitor had been read, brought on his former motion to be at once dealt with. Mr Simmons thereupon presented a petition with several signatures, praying that as he represented the ratepayers, he should be permitted to retain his seat. This was virtually an admission on the part of his friends (though we are of the same opinion as one of the Councillors who intimated that several persons had only signed the petition, “as much for ‘ a lark * as anything,” that he had no legal standing in the Council, consequently that they desired to have every proceeding of the Council vitiated unt 1 the Governor, by proclamation, endorsed the acts proposed. To the surprise of the many persons present, the petition was received ; and, on the motion of his Worship the Mayor, it was decided to. consider it' in conjunction with Cr. Campbell’s motion.,, This, we consider, a great niistake. In the first place, with the fact before them that Mr Simmons was “no councillor,” it was not competent for him to present the petition : and the petition, if received at all, should have been dealt with at once. It was clear the framers of the document anticipated that Mr Simmons would be adjudged as illegally acting as a councillor ; and we consider that in entertaining the petition, the Council were ignoring the opinion of their solicitor whose advice they had sought, aud making their own proceedings a mere farce. The petition will be found in another oolumn. Very little business was transacted at the Council after a four hours’ sitting. Cr. Campbell’s motion was eventually carried, but the meeting broke up in the most “admired disorder,” after a considerable amount of recrimination had been indulged in.