Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 942, 14 May 1881, Page 2

A special meeting, and an ordinary meeting of the Borough Council, took place on Tuesday evening last. The Town Clerk got into a little preliminary hot water through not being punctual in attendance, but his transgression was condoned before the rising of- the Council. We emphatically take no serious notice of Mr. Sherriff’s laches—whatever they may be ; and we do not know, as they were not specified—because we set our face against the too common, and somewhat unfair practice of running a man down in the street, or eloquently defaming his character in froht of an hotel bar ; and when the timercomps for action, Councillors are virtuously quiet, or indignantly silent? The Mayor said he had heard complaints against the Town Clerk, and, as he had kept the Council wailing on the present occasion he should suspend him, until the decision, and pleasure of the Council should be signified. This was done, but as no Councillor urged anything against him, Mr. Sherrtff was reinstated. But to proceed : —

Amongst other things it transpired that in consequence of no Interest Account having been opened, in connection with the Loan, as provided by the Municipal Corporations Act, the cost of telegraphing the amount of interest due to at London, in the beginning of May, entailed a loss to the Borough of some £l2 or £l3. No particular objection seems to have been taken to this, by the Councillors, and the Auditors do not appear to have notified the absence of such an account in their report. Surely something more is required at the hands of Councillors than just a flippant formal motion “ that the same be paid.” It had been paid, for the Manager of the Bank of New Zealand, knowing, it appears, better than the Council that the interest was due in London on a certain day, quietly “ took ” the cash from the Borough account, nolens vol ens, transmitted it to the London branch, at luxurious cost, and debited the ratepayers with the result. Now this we do protest against, not so much on account of the wisdom of the Bank, as the ignorance of the Borough officials. As we understand the matter the coupons were due in London on, say, the Ist of May. No provision had been made to meet them, and to save the credit of the Mayoralty of Gisborne, Mr. Matthews was instructed by the Mayor to wire to London, so that the interest should be paid in due course ; but, instead of that, the Manager sent the amount of accrued interest to credit of coupon holders, and charged the cost to the Borough. Possibly, for this the Manager deserves thanks ; but what about the cost ? We opine that some explanation will be forthcoming, as to the necessity for making the telegram so long as to tot up to the sum of £l9. A “ protecting ” wire would have sufficed, and any extra interest on account of unpunctual payment would have been overlooked. We trust | those in the Council who are most acI qiiainted with finance will see to a ; proper explanation of this gross and

unnecessary incursion on public funds. If the Bank is right, the Borough must be wrong, and if that is so, the ratepayers have aright to a more satisfactory explanation of the matter than was afforded at the last meeting of the Council.

The Wharf question draws its slow length along. It would appear that the Borough has the Government by the ears, while Mr. Common holds on by the tail. Councillor Ward said dust was being thrown into the eyes of the Council, by the Government, but whether it was sawdust, or gold dust, did not transpire. The position is certainly peculiar, and but little credit reflects on the Government for running with the hare, and hunting with the hounds. Private interests should never clash with public duty. If Mr. Common has any rights they should be protected ; but it is not a dignified method for the Government of the Colony to maintain a secret correspondence with a private firm unknown to the Council, and on Borough business, while it coevally professes to treat that firm as trespassers.

There was a discussion, led by Cr. Bennett, relative to the necessity of making provision for contractors paying the wages of their laborers, in all future contracts taken from the Council. It was urged, and not without reason, that, where contracts were sub-let, a stipulation should be made in the bond, as between the high contracting parties, that the contractor holds himself, prima facie liable for wages so incurred under such contract. Councillor Bennett quoted the late cases that arose from the sub-leases of the Ormond road contract, and suggested that in future no contracts taken from the Borough be sub-let. That, we suggest would be an infliction in an opposite direction. Such a hard and fast rule would, probably, prevent many a hard working, enterprising man —but without a large amount of capital at command —from entering into negotiations from want of present means, but which would be prospectively available in the shape of subleasing. And not only so, it would throw the bone and sinew work —of which road making is principally composed — into the hands of men with money, who would get the highest tender at the lowest rate of wage. What is wanted in a country district like this, is to let tlie struggling, bona fide settler have a show, but, if it were a condition of his contract that he could not sub let under any circumstances, it might cut the ground from under his feet, and he might starve whilst others thrive. Would it not meet the desire of the Council—which, in itself is a commendable one —to insert a clause similar to what is contained in most leases, that a contractor shall not sub-let without the sanction and approval of the Council ? Such a course would be as binding on the contractor as if he held his contract entire, and it would dispel what we fear is the existing erroneous impression, that if a contractor sub-lets portions of his contract, he disengages himself from so much of the responsibility of the whole.