Such Men.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue III, 13 August 1891, Page 2

Such Men.

We notice that that the Palmerston Standard devotes a leader to the letter we published from Mr H. Bradcock re being fined for having run his coach within the Horowhenua County without baying provided himself with a license. Our contemporary hastily assumes that Mr Bradcock's statement is conclusive as to the ineligibility of such men as the Councillors who framed the bylaw and the Justices who heard the case, to hold public office. We do not pretend to like the bylaw mentioned, we think that it is absurd and objectionable, but it was passed, after due notice had been given by the Council of its -intention to bring the same into force, by the unanimous consent of the whole of the Gounty Council, and therefore its being objectionable is no good argument against the eleotion of only two members of that Council, Messrs Kebbell and Davies. Mr Bradcock further raised an objection to the case against him having been heard by Justices who were members ofthe Council. It would be a difficult matter to get County cases settled unless Justices interested in the County, sat, and indeed the Counties Aot admits it to be so, as clause 813 directly sets out that they shall not be incapacitated for that reason, and more particularly mentions the Chairman of the Council. It is paying a poor oompliment to any gentleman holding the office of Jnstice of the Peace to suggest that he would probably break his oath of office for the paltry advantage of his County's revenue. Therefore we do not admit that Mr Bradcock has made any case as yet against " such men *' for doing their duty. There is another phase of the case which probably our contemporary is not aware of, and that is, there is no question about Mr Bradcock being in the wrong. We say again we object to the by-law, and should like to _cc our neighbours repeal it, but it is a by-law and must therefore be observed. Mr Bradcock knew of this by-law at the time it was framed, he had been asked to pay and had omitted doing so, and when summoned for the amount he did not think it worth while to attend the Court and attempt to obtain a reduotion in the penalty. He omitted any aot to save himself. The fine was heavy, but it was only equal to the two years' fee which he had left un paid. We published Mr Bradcock's letter as we are willing for both sides to be heard, and we would have been content to have let the matter rest there had not our contemporary allowed his zeal to outrun his discretion, and suggested that a one-sided statement had proved his very unfair comment upon men who have endeavoured to do their best to forward the developement of their district.