Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5503, 15 November 1878, Page 2

Mr. Hutchison does not, we think, improve his position as a candidate by his _ efforts at explanation of those parts of his official conduct on a former occasion as Mayor which have been publicly challenged. .The two points most insisted on, but not the only ones that could be indicated, are that which relates to his tampering with 'the Burgess Roll in his own interest, and the illegal and unjustifiable issue of a large cheque upon the municipal funds in payment for extras on the Waterworks contract. Having neglected to pay his rates for a time, his name was, in accordance with law, omitted from the Burgess Roil, and, not being on'the roll, Mr. Hutchison was incapacitated from holding municipal office. He paid his rates and used the authority of his position to have his name inserted on the roll after it was officially complete. This was a wrongful act, and wholly inexcusable. If it were right thus to tamper with the roll for Mr. Hutchison, it would be right to do it tor 600 or 1000 other persons, and the protection which the law gives to the hand fide ratepayers would be thereby destroyed. There is no getting over the report of the select committee on the Waterworks. Extension contract. The issue of the cheque for £2970 for extras without the consent of the Council was “illegal,” and it was “ unjustifiable.” The attempts to justify it only bring into greater prominence the dangerous laxity of administration and disregard of legal restriction which marked the later administration of Mr. Hutchison’s Mayoralty. There has been no imputation of personal corruption, but there was great carelessness, and there was a mistaken sense of duty almost as dangerous to the municipal interests as direct dishonesty could have been. Contractors are men of business first, if they be philanthropists afterwords. Competition runs them very hard and close, and is the author of many evils, besides “ extras j” these latter are regarded indeed as generally venial. The safe way of dealing with' contractors is to keep rigidly within the four sides of the contract. This appears to be exactly what Mr. Hutchison thought the interest of the ratepayers required that he should not do, and he took upon himself alone a responsibility which belonged by right to the Council. He still appears to think that he was justified in this, but we differ with him altogether, and must refuse confidence to auy one who, as Mayor of the city, could act as he has done, or permit such action to be taken by others as he has sanctioned, and now defends. Wo remember a story of contractors who once undertook the erection of a large and expensive building, shall we say on Tongariro, and whose first judicious step was to present the superintending officer with a handsome buggy and pair, in order to facilitate his journeys,of inspection up and down to the mountain. We have heard of the traditional coach and six which clever lawyers can drive through an Act of Parliament, and similarly that buggy was driven through aud over that contract, and carried such loads of “extras” besides, that the contract cost of the building was immensely exceeded, while the value of work done was affected in inverse proportion. We use this as an illustration not of what has happened here, but of what might happen with dishonest contractors and_ careless supervisors. The office of Mayor is not a political one. What he has to do with the “ poor man ” as a specialty, we do not know. Poor and rich are ratepayers, and it is his duty to care for the interests of all Mike, It is impossible to regard, such a testimonial as the report of the Special Committee on the Waterworks extension as being a passport to tho confidence of the citizens of Wellington.