RISKS OF BOROUGH COUNCILLORS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IX, Issue 107, 10 April 1885, Page 2

RISKS OF BOROUGH COUNCILLORS.

A Wellington paper referring to j the TiMjis-Srrj 'Dle case, finally dealt / with by the Chief Justice at the last ' sitting of* the Wanganui Supreme Court, remarks : - Everyone who is afc all acquainted with the municipal system is aware that the Act which created it incapacitates any councillor.! who is concerned m any contract work, or work to be clone for the Council. If he takes such a contract or does such work he is liable to the heavy penalty provided ftfr m the 63 rd .section ot' the Act; Iv the case which has just been brought to a conclusion m Wanganui the defendant may have proceeded" under a genuine mistake. He may have thought that as tho power over the Hospital was conferred by a special Act, and as the work was not to be paid for out of municipal funds, he ran no risk. That be was wrong is evident enough from the. judgment delivered last week, but -that. need not throw doubt on his bonajides. But can the same bo said of all Borough i Councillors throughout the Colony ? Is it not .a -fact, that horn time to time casesS occur which unquestionably come under the statute, and m which the penalties are not lecovered merely because nobody cares to sue for them ? Instances have come under our notice m 'which it would have been very inconvenient if a Borough councillor had declined to d&al with the body of which he was a member. He has hud, we will say, m stock some article immediately needed lor Borough work, which article could not be procured without great delay and inconvenience except from him. Not for the sake of the profit to lie derived from the sale, but for tito public benefit, he has {supplied what was necessary. No one could grant him a dispensation, and he has run the risk of a prosecution, feeling confident that he incurred. no real danger. There are no doubt yet more flagrant cases, though generally speaking the amounts involved are small, or comparatively so. Tho Wanganui case may l)e of service m bringing home forcibly to these municipal sinners the fact that m dealing with the Council of which they are members they do run a substantial risk of having to pay dearly for even trivial violation of' the law. The provision fwhich forbids such dealing may occasionally be inconvenient from j^p^blio point of- view, but the safe-guard is necessary for the purpose of shutting oat jobbery and corruption which arc apt to creep mby very narrow doors. We therefore do not advocate a relaxation of the law, but increased circumspection on the part of those who are subject ;o its operation. ;