ijlatttwato $M»ll TUESDAY, JULY S3, ISM. Sties by Councillor!.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue III, 22 July 1890, Page 2

ijlatttwato $M»ll TUESDAY, JULY S3, ISM. Sties by Councillor!.

It takes many years before the public get out of nm old groove. At one time the Municipal Corp rations Act declared that any person holding any office or place of profit under or in the gift of the Ouncil, or being concerted or participating: (other tkan as a shareholder consisting of more than twenty persons) i» any contract with or work to be done for the Council, should be disqualified, and liable to a fine of fifty pounds for {every sueb offence. We know that under this Act a member of the Palmerston Borough Council was proceeded against and fined, for that he supplied the Council with some stationery that could not bo procured elsewhere in town. This clause was found to work very inconveniently *nd made men who were well fitted for members of a < 'ouncil disinclined to accept office for fear that the purchase of a few pounds of nails at their store, might give an opening to some one to proceed against them. The olause was r«aliv intended to prevent a ring be ing formed Hy which each Councillor might work a little profit durmg his tenure of office, and as a large principle was so far good. Councillor Fume has raised tke question at our Council table, but though bo declared ho believed the

Act had been amended, the Major did not feel himeelf competent to rule. Councillor Fume thefore wrote to Sir Robert Stout rtho had proposed such an alteration, and ha* now received reply to the iftvet that the cause ii altered in both tha Counties and Borough Acts. The Disqualification of Councillors clause is number 88 of the Municipal Corporations Act 1888, aad sub-section seven read* " Any person being 1 concerned or parti. cipitating in any contract with or work to be done for the Council, if the payment of tuck eon tract or iuch work exceeds five poundt for any on* contract or work, or ten pounds altogether in any year if more than one contract or *ork } , shall be disqualified. This is a considerable difference and is as it should be, so that for the future there it no reason that those who have given their services to the town should mot receive a share of the business dose. We think it will to Admitted that Councillor Yurrie has done good work in getting this alteration brought clearly out.