Not the Council’s Scheme.

Patea Mail, 31 May 1882, Page 3

Not the Council’s Scheme.

So it was said by Mr Dale and others at Saturday’s meeting. The objection has some show of reason. It is an objection that might have been avoided. We can only express surprise that such an objection was allowed to arise. If by oversight, it is strange that so many Councillors should be parties to it. If by- deliberate intention, we disapprove strongly of the expedient, while blaming also those who permitted this course, intending to raise a hubbub when the mischief was done.

The Act is silent on the question as to whether the scheme ought to have been adopted by a formal resolution of the' Council. More general satisfaction would have been felt by Councillors, if another meeting had been held to further consider and formally adopt the scheme. It must be confessed, however, that ail the Councillors (excepting perhaps Mr Gibson) allowed the scheme to go to a public meeting, knowing that it could not then be modified, and must be: voted on as a whole. Having allowed this course, it is positively unfair . and ridiculous to complain, at the public meeting that the scheme was the May or’s because it had not been'formally adopted by the Council. /Schoolboys may play such pranks, but men entrusted with public affairs are not expected to waste time in this fashion. v

Mr Bright sensibly asked at the meeting for the opinion of other members of the Council. Taking as a test the public declaration of Councillors, or public assent by silence, the proportion stands thus :

Against the scheme— Councillors Milroy, Aitchison, and Gibson: total, 8. For the scheme— the Councillors Taplin, Adams, Dixon, Howitt, Black, Mahony : total, 7. This being the proportion in which the Council was divided on' the scheme, it was a .waste of time; and a 'tfat on public patience to object and pretend that this was not the scheme of the Council. One Councillor has since revoked his previous approval, although he knew all the facts before Saturday’s meeting. The Council now appear to be divided in the proportion of 6 for "the scheme and 4 against it. When some Councillors remain silent, their Opinion can only be inferred. Whether this ‘ be the true proportion or not, we contend that the Council have allowed the question to pass out of their hands ; and it being now the property of the ratepayers, they ought to vote on it as a public question affecting the present and future prosperity of the town. If some Councillors have neglected or shirked their duty, it is now for the public to settle this in their own interest. We ratepayers may not be able to stop these party squabbles, but we can at least take this important question of a loan out of the hands of a divided

Council, and vote upon it on this issue Shall the town go ahead with a loan; or shall the town remain stagnant without a loan ?