A NICE KETTLE OF FISH.

Kumara Times, Issue 2320, 4 February 1884, Page 2

A NICE KETTLE OF FISH.

[to the editor.]

Certainly, Mr Editor, our Borough Council affairs are in that charming state of muddle that even the Westland Education Board cannot hold a candle to it. There was never at any time more than two members of the Board who dabbled in contracts and supplied goods to the Board. But in our model Council there are sis out of nine members who have been contracting with the Council for supplying goods, &c., and whose sleep is now somewhat irregular, owing to the fact that his Worship the Mayor, with a firm hand, decided to put a stop to such illegal proceedings. Accordingly, the Borough Solicitor’s opinion was taken, and he, in a very decisive manner, as shewn in his opinion read at the last ordinary meeting of the Borough Council, and published in your import of the meeting, tells the five trucksters that they have no right to sit at the table, and that every time they do sit and act, tbey # make themselves liable in the sum of £SO, which said sum is recoverable by any person who may sue for the same ; vide section 61, 62, and 63, “Municipal Corporations Act, 1876.” In your Saturday’s issue a local appears to the effect that Councillor Simmons had sent in his resignation—no more, no less. Surely the longsuffering ratepayers of this huhabub of the universe are entitled to some explanation. If you had only said that, owing to pressure of business —why one could have put up with it; but to lose the valuable services of that Simon pure, or concentrated essence dry hash of local Government rectitude, without a single word of explanation, ’tis really too bad. Even the Hokitika Guardian, famed as it is for publishing by the square yard the maundering utterances of its Kumara correspondent, does not on this occasion vouchsafe a single word in explanation. Bat, perhaps, the Guardian’s correspondent, the retiring Councillor, and the Joey Hume of Kumara borough finance, are all one and the same person?—That being the case, silence is golden. The mathesis of how to deal with the ratepayers’ money has proved too much for Councillor Simmons; like many another erring brother, into the vortex of corruption headlong he has flung himself, and for the paltry sum of £2 15s, Councillor Simmons sold the Council a chimney top, sold himself, sold his seat in the Council, and forfeited the I’espect of his stanchest supporters. A short history of the chimney affair will perhaps enable your readers to understand how honest and unselfish ex-Oooncillor Simmons can act. Twelve months ago, and when George Simmons, sen., could not affix 8.0. to his name, the Council asked for tenders for building a chimney. Mr W.‘Heinz got the job. George Simmons, sen., sent in a long letter and complained bitterly that he had been unfairly treated, and made out that the gauge of the iron was not the same as tendered for. The Borough Council appointed a committee ; George Simmons, sen,, failed to prove his statement, and, like for what the chimney was intended, it all ended in smoke. In December, 1883, another chimney requires a top. By this time George Simmons, sen., affixes B.C, to his name, and has become a full blown city father. The question of repairing the chimney is referred to the Public Works Committee. The Chairman of that Committee, who is also another dabbler in borough contracts, asks his fellow councillor, George Simmons, sen., “ What will you do the job for 1” “Two shillings and sixpence per foot,” was the reply. His Worship was informed of this, and gave instructions to have Mr W. Heinz’s manager asked also to give in a price. This request was unheeded. Councillor Simmons got the job at his own price; did the work; sent in his account; and got the money. And now writes out a bill of particulars for a bosom friend, who sues for the £SO penalty in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Kumara. Case now pending. Then resigns his seat in the Council; puts the ratepayers to the expense of an election. Virtually we live in an age of frauds ; but, if conduct, of (his kind is to be tolerated, then .i sr.y, Simmons, sen., as a Borough Councillor, has proved a fraud. Elect nine others of the like ilk, and there is an end to pure local administration, and the Tammany Ring business will flourish triumphant, to the detriment of the good people of Kumara. Having dealt as briefly as was possible under the circumstances with .>xCouncillor .Simmons, i will now the n a mas of the ntho ■ Con u.-i lions who arc disqualified, a., ' v.j tender them-

solves liable to penalties every time they act; that is, if the Borough Solicitor's opinion he sound and in accord with the true meaning of the disqualification clauses in the Municipal Corporations Act, 1876.” Councillor A. C. Campbell, Esq., has been in the habit of supplying hardware, kerosene, dynamite, &c. Councillor George Rudkin, Esq., Chairman of Public Works Committee, ordered from himself, in the capacity of Councillor and Chairman of Public Works Committee, corrugated iron and other goods; account sent in to Council; passed by Finance Committee;.but, on solicitor's opinion being read, application made to withdraw the account. But as there are other accounts previously passed and paid, this ruse will not get rid of the penalties incurred. Councillor J. Mnlvihill, Esq.—Resolution passed that a deputation should proceed to Hokitika ; Councillor Mnlvihill provided the buggy; chai’ged 30s for it; presented the account, and got paid. As there are no other buggies in Kumara, perhaps the penalties in this case might be remitted, i.e., if a friend sues and recovers. Councillor Wm. Nicholson, Esq., has received payment for timber supplied; has suddenly become virtuous, and the other day refused to supply any more timber. To this the Messrs M‘Connous will doubtless not object. But, whether or not, it will get rid of the penalties that time alone must decide. Councillor 0. W. Anderson, Esq., became disqualified some months ago 6wing to having had to join the majority, or otherwise file his schedule announcing his insolvency. In the face of the law being so very clear in his case, he persists in taking his seat and acting as a councillor. Perhaps having nothing to lose, he imagines no one will assail him. The risk is rather too much to run, considering the gain is nil. If the five gentlemen last referred to act wisely they will resign, like. Councillor Simmons, resting assured that before so acting, he had taken the best legal advice obtainable. Should they, however, persist in keeping their seats and setting the law at defiance, they may rest assured that in times like these, when money is scarce, that £l2oo to be recovered by simply suing for the same, will not remain long unclaimed. The proofs of debts are the minute books of the Council, and the vouchers and receipts which are now carefully locked up in the Borough safe, and are producahle at any time by subpoena being served on the Borough Treasurer. Having dealt with the present disqualified Councillors, I conclude by saying that ex-Mayor O’Hagan supplied goods to the Council; that ox-Mayor Barnett supplied goods to the Council; and that each was disqualified according to the Borough Solicitor’s opinion, and liable to penalties. Also that exCouncillor Burger, who at the present time now seeks re-election, also supplied the books, which are now used by the Council; and when Mr Spiers, bookseller, wrote protesting against being excluded from supplying books and stationery, Councillor Burger moved that the letter be not received. Afterwards, there is the Town Clerk’s petty cash receipt, shewing the books were bought from Councillor Burger. Selling the books to the Town Clerk and not to the Council, although the Council pays for them, wont wash. The disqualification is still there: the Council paid the money, and Councillor Barger x’eceivcd it. Subterfuge of that kind wont last one second before Dr. Giles, and proves that Councillor Burger knew he was doing wrong; otherwise he would, like the other councillors, have sold his goods openly. Nemesis. Kumara, February 2, 1884.