The Wairarapa Daily. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1881.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 3, Issue 874, 15 September 1881, Page 2

The Wairarapa Daily. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1881.

The Wellington Evening Post, writing the other day on Royal Commissioners' expenses, said" The members of the Civil Service Commission were, it will be remembered, Sir Robert Douglas, Bart., Mr A. Saunders, Mr T. Kelly, M.H.R., imd Mr Charles Piiarazyn. Each member drew honorarium for his services. Mr Saunders, the Chairman, wns absurdly modest, and received only £9O 7s, Mr Kelly wns paid £99135. Sir Robert Douglas claimed £113135, and gotit—a baronet naturally would be worth more than a mere " Mister." But Mr Charles Pharazyn received no less than £338 2s, of which £224 14s is curiously described as "special allowance." Now, we should like very much to have some explanation of'this little transaction, 01 course we are extremely pleased that the services of our Wellington Commissioner should have been so substantially appreciated by a grateful country. Still, we should like to know why Mr Pharazys appropriated £338 2s Id out of the aggregate of £619 10s paid to all the Commissioners. History relates that when Joseph entertained his brethren, "Benjamin's mess was live times so much as any of theirs," Lucky Mr Charles Pharazyn has clearly come in for" Benjamin's mess," But why 1 He is not a baronet, like Sir Robert Douglas, or Chairman of the Commission, like Mr Saunders, or a Taranaki member, like Mr Kelly. Why should lie have been so favored in tho "sharing of the spoilf An "honor-arium"-—or, in plain English, salary (we hate those misleading euphemisms) of £338 is not at all bad for three or four months' woik, and we are not at all surprised that Mr Piiarazyn, deemed it so very desirable that the Civil Service Commission should continue its labours indefinitely. However,'he has not done so badly, and may fairly rest content with his' Benjamin's mess.'"

Tho explanation of tho discrepancy pointed out by our contemporary is very simple—indeed so palpable that the only wonder is that the writer of the article could have overlooked it, The Disqualification Act prevented the three first-named Commissioners from drawing the honorarium attached to the Royal Commissions, Sir Robert Douglas, though no longer a member of the House, was a member within a year of the time at which tho Commission was appointed, and therefore was subject to penalties under the Act to which we have referred. The ordinary pay for the Royal Commissioners is, we understand, two guineas per day. To this was added one guinea per day for travelling expenses, We have been informed that Mr C. Pharazyn never made any formal claim on the Government for the former allowance, but that a cheque was forwarded to him as a matter of course, which was based on the statute allowance paid to Commissioners who were non-members of the House. The Wellington Evening Post, in singling Mr C. Puarazyn's case out as an exceptional one. when he was not treated differently to other gentlemen placed in a s'milar position, was manifestly unfair. Would our contemporary assume that Mr C. Piumzyn's time is not worth two guineas per day? If the services of the best men of the colony are not worth such an amount, New Zealand is very badly off. The secret of the whole thing is that an impression has got abroad that the Hall Ministry are not likely to survive another Parliament, and our contemporary, wise in its generation, is doing its best to make their demise a speedy one by smothering and choking its late friends on every possible occasion. The attack, though nominally against Mr Piiarayzn, is really against Mr Hall No o'n'e was more staunch and loyal to the Premier than our contemporary when his star was rising, but now it deems it to be setting, it will cultivate the. good will of his anticipated successor with the,same successful assiduity with which it formerly won the regard of Mr Hall.

Ratepayeks money iB often foolishly expended but perhaps the worst use to which it can be put is in pouring it forth in unnecessary litigation. The Masterton Borough Council has decided by the casting vote of its Mayor to sue the County Council for a sum of £2O which it claims from that body This action is not taken because the immediate possession of £2O is of conseque.uce to tho Borough or because the County denies the debt but simply as an expression of irritation. It is as far as we can judge a display of temper for which ratepayers either directly or indirectly will have .to pay. The County has not refused to admit the claim, it has simply said that it has a .contra'account which its clerk has no); as yet had time to adjust, and which the said clerk has been instructed to make up forthwith; The nature of this contra account is well .understood by the Borough Couricil, it having already been detailed in the public press, but because some formal letter lias not been received from the County giving the explanation, the Council has determined to go to law. The County has power, to benefit thetown of Masterton to » very

large extent and it also has power to injure it should it have a desire to do soWe do not say that it is likely to injure Mastei'ton, hut it is the height of folly for the Borough Council to endeavor to promote a quarrel and it only shows that some of our representatives'think moro o; carsying on a miserable squabble at the expense of the public than they do of protecting the interests of the ratepayers. [Since writing the above we hoar that a letter has been received by the Borough Council which shews that it, and not the County, was responsible for tho 1 laches' with respect to correspondence complained of by the former body, Already, therefore, the Borough Council has had to stay its hand because it found itself making ablunder.]