The Southland Times. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1867.

Southland Times, Issue 751, 18 November 1867, Page 2

The Southland Times. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1867.

In another column will be found a letter signed " Citizen," commenting upon an article on the Municipal Corporation Act, published in our issue of the 11th inst. It is not often that we discuss the merits or demerits of " open column" commuaications, but in this instance we feel constrained to do so. " Citizen" has thought fit to question, and attempts to refute the arguments we have used in favor of establishing a Municipal Council in Invercargill. The letter bears upon it the stamp of inconsistency. The writer is opposed to the incorporation of this town for many reasons, all. of which when analysed simply mean, " Oh, whatever improvements are made don't ask me to contribute." He takes exception to the remarks advocating the adoption of the new Municipal Council Aetforlnvereargill. Heviews all who seek to adopt the municipal system as those who "having no property are desirous of depriving their neighbors who have, in the hope of being able to obtain a share of the plunder." He believes the Municipal Act "an admirable and comprehensive measure," but hugs the idea that " The Local Improvement Ordinance, 1866," is all that is required for the improvement of the town. Yet " Citizen " must be acquainted with the fact that the latter Ordinance is inoperative — that the Municipal Act, passed by the Greneral Assembly, is the only basis upon which all future corporate bodies can be constituted. ■ " Citizen" is a special pleader. In opposing the creation of a municipality he labors to show that the Town Board was not a beneficial institution, that it was lavish in its expenditure — done but little work, and that little in a most extravagant way. He says : — "Its outstanding liabilities amount to tweutythree thousand two hundred and fiftyseven pounds. with three years interest to be added." Granting that the figures are correct, we cannot see upon what ground he seeks to prove his case. Is it because the Town Board was not perfection, that every description of municipal institution should be rejected. The flippant way in which the works of the Town Board are commented upon may be taken for what it is worth. The amount of work done is considerably underrated. The writer asks " what has become of this money— the £23,257 12s?"— and then merely answers — " Tay-street has been gravelled, the footpaths in Eskstreet, and two or three other streets made, and some ditches dug." Then "Citizen" attempts to be playfully facetious about " posts, umbrellas, &c." Such allusions are out of place, and demonstrates the weakness of an argument that requires such illustrations to support it. We . contend that the town of Invercargill has been well drained, and considering the circumstances under which the whole of the work was executed, the labors of the Board for the good of the community are much more extensive than our " disinterested" correspondent cares to acknowledge. But supposing that the Town Board was mismanaged, and the money not so wisely and carefully expended as might have been desired, does that prove that a Cifcy Council is not required ? Certainly not. The powers of the Town Board were sq circuu-

Bcribed that it became impossible that all \ the multifarious works necessary could be j accomplished. Still much was done. If there had been no Town Board Inver- ( cargill would have remained a sea of mud j to the present day. The Provincial 1 G-overnment, for whom " Citizen" appears ] to have a fond affection, never would hare j done half as much for the money as was ; done by the Town Board. Whatever s shortcomings may be laid to the charge ■ of the first Municipal Council, they [ sink into utter insignificance when com- . pared to those of the Provincial Govern- . ment and Council. Again the writer thinks that " tho Municipal Corporation Act is doubtless an admirable and comprehensive measure, one which will prove very beneficial to communities ripe for them" but he thinks " the Local Improvement Ordinance will suit our present ' circumstances better." This favored ' Ordinance we assume has no legal existence. He also states that the Provincial Government can do all that is required cheaper and better than a Council could. What has it done ? It has had four prisoners occasionally occupied in cleaning a drain, or r helping to make footpaths in particular streets, the inhabitants of which subscribed the money for the materials and dray work. Is this all that is required to keep in passable condition the chief town of a Province that spends £10,000 in official salaries ? " Citizen" is evidently one of those property-holders who objects to pay any share of the expense of improving the town in which that property is. He ought to know that the more improvements are made the greater will be the value of the land he holds, and yet he will wait until other people's labors have enriched him without cost. There are men of this stamp, but it is well for the cause of progress that they are but a uuit in most communities. We repeat what we previously stated, " that there is no town in the colony that could be more benefitted by the adoption of this Act than Invercargiil." It is not only that we believe the town would be improved that we advocate the formation of a municipality, but also from a conviction that all the Province would be equally benefited. It one Council was formed others would follow, and the Provincial Government aud the provincial system unanimously voted cumbersome and useless. All those interested in the progress of this Province should now assist in establishing municipalities beeouse in the small provinces they will supersede the used-up system of Provincialism. " Citizen" has done good service in ' opening up the question, and we doubt not will help the movement.