OFFICIAL CORRUPTION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 41, 4 November 1871, Page 12

OFFICIAL CORRUPTION.

For several years past the opponents of universal suffrage and democratic institutions have been in the habit of pointing to the City of New York as an example of the evils which they contend are inseparable from such institutions, when brought into operation in large cities and densely populated countries. On the other hand, the admirers of such institutions, and the conscientious adherents of “ a government by the people, through the people, for the people,” without denying the truth of the allegations made by their opponents, have replied that an exception does not prove the rule ; aud that the example of flagrant misgovernment and corruption furnished by the City of New York, is an exceptional case, which lias no necessary connection with democratic institutions ; and which has arisen from the absence, or the neglect, of those safeguards against corruption and abuse of office, which in other countries have been established. It has only been just two months since a great meeting was held at New York, at which the officers of the City Government were charged with fraudulently misappropriating the city funds, of contracting heavy and unauthorised debts, and of entailing great and unnecessary taxes upon the people. It was not a party meeting. All the taxpayers of the city, irrespective of party, had been invited to attend it; and members of both parties were present. The object professed to be desired was the emancipation of the administration of the Municipal Government from the control of political parties, secured by a new charter, which would confer all the necessary safeguards against the occurrence of those abuses which had so long prevailed in the administration of the affairs of that city. The meeting was addressed by many prominent citizens, some of whom belonged to the democratic party, or the party which has long been dominant in New York. Being well aware how unscrupulous parties and the Press of the United States are in making charges against each other, we should have attached but little weight to those made on the present occasion against the members of the City Government, if the meeting had been convened by their opponents for party purposes. But as this does not appear to have been the case, the statements made at this meeting are not without significance. We gather from one of the resolutions that the funded and bonded debt of the city and country had been more than doubled within the last two and a half years; that the acknowledged indebtedness of the city and county is now upwards of 113 million dollars, being over 63 million dollars more than it was when the present Mayor took office; and that there is reason to believe that the floating debts and claims amount to many million of dollars in addition. We gather that more than seven million dollars bad been expended in repairing, decorating, and furnishing the Court House; and that 2,700,000 dollars had been expended in repairing and decorating tlie city armories. It is stated also, that large sums of money had been paid to a few firms and individuals for work never performed, and materials never furnished; and this with the procurement and connivance of persons now holding the principal offices of trust and profit under the existing City Charter. At the head of these stand the Public Works Commissioner, the City Comptroller, and the present Mayor.* It appears that a plasterer had received, for work done during a period of less than two years, nearly three million of dollars ; that a furniture firm had received, # for supplies to the court-house, over

five million of dollars ; that the plumber for work done two millions; and the New York Printing Company, for county printing alone, during a period of one year and nine months, a sum amounting to nearly two million of dollars. The printed accounts show that 350,000 dollars had been paid for carpets for the County Court House, which it is asserted would have been supplied for 12,000 dollars. It is distinctly stated that the whole of this money did not go into the hands of the parties who had receipted the bills; but into the pockets of city officials who had thus become suddenly wealthy at the city’s expense. And, in truth, it must be admitted that £70,000 sterling does appear to be an outrageous sum to pay for carpets for a single court-bouse ; and it appears still more monstrous when it is borne in mind that these luxuries and extravagances were not paid for out of surplus revenue, but out of borrowed money, obtained secretly, and expended without legal authority. There must be something radically wrong in a charter under which such abuses could be perpetrated with impunity. But the question is—and its right solution concerns others besides the people of New York—whether such abuses could exist if it was made a criminal offence to sanction illegal debts and expenditure: if all contracts for works and supplies were made by public tenders, opened in the presence of the competitors; and if the officers who passed and paid unauthorized and fraudulent accounts, were made liable to a criminal prosecution. In any case, as we have intimated, the matter is one of great inteiest to every country which possesses free institutions.