The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1878.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5496, 7 November 1878, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1878.

The dullness succeeding the close of the Parliamentary session appears likely to be relieved by the humors of the Mayoral election. It has been known that the present occupant of that office, Mr. Dransfield, had, in compliance with what was understood to bo the general desire of the citizens, consented to be nominated for another term ; but Mr. Hutchison objects to allow a walk-over, and has tendered his own services to his fellow citizens. We published yesterday a full report of Mr. Hutchison’s address to the ratepayers at the Princess Theatre, and in' it we may assume that we have the “policy” of tho candidate for Municipal honors. A Mayor may have a policy as well as a Prime Minister, and tho triumphs of the stump are not to be monopolised by Sir George Grey. Next to tho Premier on the slump, sed longo inieruallo, comes Mr. Hutchison, if we may judge him from his speech. He is the “ man of the people of Wellingtonhis opponent is the man of tho “upper ten,” of the bloated aristocrats. There is a strong family resemblance amongst the men of the people in their disregard of those restraints of law which ordinary persons submit themselves to. The good of the people is the supreme law with them, and they make a new law, or interpret an existing one according to their own individual view of what is best for the masses. In this respect Sir George Grey and Mr. Hutchison resemble each other. Tho Premier when he wants to get hold of the Opposition Press gives a telegraph concession worth more than £3OOO a year to newspapers that support his peculiar views of public politics. The late Mayor upon one occasion had his name placed on the burgess roll, somewhat irregularly, in order that the people might not be deprived of his services; and upon another occasion he was ready without any other authority than his own view of what was good for the ratepayers to allow the terms of a contract to be disregarded in order “ that the work should be done at what- “ ever necessary expense, so that it “ should be permanent and efficient, “ and answer the purpose for which the “ratepayers of Wellington required it, “ that is, securing an abundant supply of “ water.” Disagreeable persons poked their noses into this matter, and tho “illegal” issue of a cheque for £2970 brought about an official enquiry before a special committee of the Council, which disclosed a laxity of administration exceedingly dangerous to the pecuniary interests of the ratepayers. The airy reference which Mr. Hutchison made to this affair in his speech induced us again to look into the s published report of the committee, and to present the ratepayers with a resume of it.

.The committee consisted of Councillors Macdonald, Diver, Hunter, Logan, and the mover (Councillor Fisher). The chief conclusions arrived at by tho committee were that a cheque for £2970 was illegally paid to the contractor for the waterworks. This, payment was made without the sanction or the approval of the Council. They found that tho Engi-ueer-in-charge had not given to his duties that close and vigilant attention which theyrequired, and recommended a discontinuance of his services. They found that certain of the tenderers wore misled by the engineer . on important points, which caused tho tenders to be several thousand pounds higher than they would otherwise have been. They declared that the Town Clerk (Mr. Hester) was exceedingly lax in his attention to his duties. They found that the action of the late Mayor (Mr. Hutchison) in signing a cheque for £2970, for extras, without examining closely into the matter, was “unjustifiable," as he ought to have held the payment of the certificate over till the next meeting of the Council, or called a special meeting to deal with it. From the minutes of the evidence we gather that more money was paid to Mr. Saunders, the contractor, than was duo to him at a given date. That Mr. Saunders did a quantity of extra work for which ho sent in a claim of £3909 17s, and in part payment of which a cheque for £2970 was handed to him. On the 6th of December there was a mooting of the City Council, at which no mention of the claim for extras was made and, on the day after, this payment to tho contractor was made. Mr. Hester, the Town Clerk, though wholly ig. norant of the conditions of tho contract, after a little demur, but without, any inquiry, sent tho cheque to tho Mayor, Mr. Hutchison, who, equally ignorant apparently of tho conditions of tho contract,. and also without inquiry, immediately signed tho cheque. Tho Town Clerk then signed it because the Mayor had signed it, and another Councillor signed it°beoauso tho Mayor and the Town Clerk had signed it, and those two had signed it merely because the City Surveyor bad signed it. On tho bare signature of tlio City Surveyor, who acknowledged himself ignorantof certain specifications in thocontract, this largo sum of money was paid away. Had tho Engineer, or tho Town Clerk, or the Mayor, or tho Councillor taken the least trouble, they would have, found that tho claim was quite unwarrantable, and that they had no right to sign that cheque. Altljpugh tho evidence brought out, after a close and thorough examination, may exonerate those gentlemen from any implication of personal corruption, this inquiry demonstrates tho fact that cheques for money wore signed in tho most careless fashion, and that Engineer, Town Clerk, Mayor and Councillors might bo led to pay away large sums of the ratepayers’ money without [pulfioient inquiry. The town clerk said it .was usual to pay away large sums on the bare certificate of the engineer, without requiting any particulars, and later ho said that ho did not think it part of tho duties of a Town Clerk to familiarise ' himself with tho details of any _ contract. Mr. Hutchison said that he had arranged with tho Town Clerk that tho latter should see that all cheques were authentically correct; ho was himself iguorpjit of U»o

terms of the contract. Though there was a special clause regarding “extras” the Mayor, without getting the consent of the Council, signed this cheque for £2970 on account of “extras:” All through the inquiry, in answer to almost every question, Mr. Hutchison revealed the astonishing fact that ho matter how carefully the City Solicitor might word a contract, no matter how closely a contractor might be bound down, no matter how carefully the interests of the ratepayers might appear to be ' protected,—yet that an erroneous view of those, interests on the part of the Mayor, or habitual laxity and carelessness of administration on the part of other officials, might deprive the people of all protection, and subject the city to great pecuniary loss.

Before the day of election arrives, there will bo time for the burgesses to refresh their memory by a perusal of tho report of the special committee and of the evidence; both are instructive. No doubt Mr. Dransfield will have a word to say in duo time, and we shall be glad to afford to him the same fair play and full report that we have given to his opponent. Having heard both sides, we shall then be in a position to judge fairly of the claims to public confidence of the respective candidates.