TOWN BOARD DEFAULTERS.

Patea Mail, Volume I, Issue 63, 17 November 1875, Page 3

TOWN BOARD DEFAULTERS.

/ Cm 'run norma of run patka maii..) —Jn your issue of the 10th hist., a gWvit charge is preferred against the Parlyle Town Hoard, viz., that some of its members are incompetent to fulfil their dnlies, which, if substantiated, might to lie remedied. The writer of the letter referred to, who signs himself l> Elector,” puts his observations in very strong langnag , and expn sst s his surf rise at the discovery that some of the members, whom he plainly points to, are deficient in common sense. This is indeed a rather questionable compliment to parties concerned, but “ Fleeter” disposes of the whole alfair in a quite business and off-hand manner, which appears to me rather amusing. Let us proceed to exam me the charge. Three persons were nominated by ti c Hoard to perform the duties of assessors to the township, and “Elector" coolly informs the public two of the three are tin qualified from want of experience. In this way, he curtly observes that, although possessed of well known mercantile ability and a good accountant, it docs not follow that the. talent requisite in this instance should he presumed, and doors him at once with the, unkind allusion as to his underpaid office. The other nominee isseaiceiy considered worthy of notice, although willing to perform the work lor three pounds, which by the way I consider not bad wages for about three days work. Well, he is simply incompetent not po---essing experience. Now, Mr Editor, the third nominee is i/tc ina/>. He is superabundantly possessed of (be requisite. What, a pity Elector ” did not inform ns as to where and when this favorite party attained In's experience, and in what particular does it exist. 'Then “ Elector ” sums up with a judicious caution to the public to have the offending member or members replaced at the next election. Really, Mr Editor, the assurance and presumption of “ Elector” are intolerable. Fancy a community, all more or less possessed of landed property, not qualified to estimate the value of one section from another. I should think that the most illiterate Imshmen, butcher, or baker could inform us that the section of 1872 is not equal in value to same section of 1875 or 1880. We all have the same facilities as “ Klector” for gaining information as to the current rates of properties, and by the way, in winding up, if “ Elector” is so competent a personage as he represents himself, it may not be necessary to remind him of an important feature in the valuation of properly for building purposes, that is, the facilities for obtaining good watc, as there are many sections in the townsnip utterly d Tieieiit in this respect. Hut it is to he hoped that, our assessment roll is not a queer one. Query. Now we have the whole cfts<\ and in what have the Town Hoard offended V Except, indeed, that it may he consider al by many that they have o (fended to the amount of £2, seeing that the work required could have been obtained for so much lesS than is now charged, I would therefore observe that. *■ Elector’s ” sage remarks and accusations are unfounded, and considering the fact, that the Town Hoard are an unpaid body of officials, we should give them credit for the performance of their duties conscientiously, ,aful not endeavor to trump up complaints without sulfieient reason. I am, &c., ANOTHER ELECTOR.