Untitled

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3678, 8 October 1880, Page 2

Fob the last six months we hare heard a great deal about the impecuniosity of the Borough, and of our own knowledge are aware that many poor men were unpaid for months the money due them, owing to the Bank refusing to advance supplies. Even at the present time many Councillors think the working expenses are too heavy—that retrenchment should still be the order of the day, for at last night's meeting notice of motion was given to consider the whole question of salaries; while one Councillor wanted reductions to be made at once without further consideration. Yet in the face of all this we perceive from the report of the Water Supply Committee that certain unauthorised expenditure, a water-engine, &c, to drive a lathe, incurred by the turncock, is to be paid for, and taken over by the Council. There is more in the report than appears on the surface, in fact, from it one would be led to believe that something very wrong had been done by the turncock, who, though guilty this time, was let off, but he is not to commit the offence again. The matter is very simple—if the purchase of the water engine was not authorised by the committee, well, it should not be paid for by the Council; and in the second place, is such at all required by the Council P What work does the turncock do on his lathe for the Council, and is it necessary to have* a water engine costing £25 to supply the motive power ? We believe that the Council have committed a grave mistake by their action iv this matter, and the sooner steps are taken to undo it the better. We are only treating the matter from the representations in the report, and the remarks of the Chairman of the meeting, Mr Speight, who said the engine had not been ordered by the committee or anyone authorised by that body. Jf such is the case this action of the Council ia wrong in principle, and entails an unnecessary expenditure of public money.