THE CAMBRIDGE BOROUGH COUNCIL.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2311, 3 May 1887, Page 3

THE CAMBRIDGE BOROUGH COUNCIL.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The game of euchre still continues in the borough council, but it begins to look more like " cut throat" than it did a month ago, when everybody seemed to be playing into each other's hands. Councillors Hally and Gillett scored a point at the last meeting, when they got the mayor to vote for the expenditure on the saleyards; and in return allowed the salary to go through on a "lone hand." Several of the outside public are meaftwhile trying a game of brag or bluff, at which one or two of them seem to be well up. Among the many dreadful things that are threatened by this party are the following The turning out of office of the whole of the councillors in less than three months; making the mayor refund the £50 salary ; stopping the passing of the Act to validate the doings of the Cambridge Council by the House of Representatives; compelling the Licensing Committee to close at least two of the hotels; to have the borough divided into wards ; and finally to hold an indignation meeting, and appoint a vigilance committee to watch over the interests of the ratepayers. Now, Sir, with all these calamities hanging over our heads, I think it is quite time the ratepayers took a hand in this (quoting a member of the late town board) " bewitching game "of euchre. Many of the inhabitants are asking what the row is all about, and after listening to first one side and then the other, are much inclined to think " all men are liars." At all events, that is my case. As I have lately been studying the actions of our councillors, and also of the would-be-councillors, as well as making enquiries— which have sometimes been considered rather "cheeky," but I find nothing succeeds in the colony like it—perhaps you will allow me, in your columns, to express rny opinions, and also ask a few questions. Regarding the saleyards, £108 is much less than the ratepayers expected was going to foe spent on theiii ; and if an extra £10 per year can be secured by the improvements we have nothing to grumble at. Nevertheless, I think the prime movers—Crs. Hally and Gillett—cannot be acquitted of the charge of "interested motives." If they can induce other auctioneers to use the yards by fair means, well and trood ; but let them beware of trying force. I do not believe Messrs Buckland care a "rap " whether the council sign their lease or not; for they are offered land just outside the borough on which they can erect their yards, and they will no doubt do so if the council " cut up rough." The salary of £50 to the Mayor is said to have caused " very general dissatis- { faction throughout the borough." This I cannot agree with. I admit there are a few who, like the "dog in the manger," know- 1 ing they cannot get it themselves, grumble at anyone else having it; but I contend the majority of the ratepayers would endorse i the action of the council. The Mayor has studied hard, and I think now knows the laws relating to Municipal Corporations as well as anyone in the town. He also saves the burgesses the expense of an engineer, as he prepares the specifications and superintends the carrying out of the work upon the roads. Again, he takes the responsibility off the shoulders of the clerk in all , matters of importance; and, lastly, he has an unlimited supply of "cool cheek," and ' can ask the Government for lands or a i Wesleyan parson for a share of the proceeds of a lecture in a sang-froid manner that would be hard to beat. This, Sir, together i with expenses out of pocket, is surely worth £50 a year. Mr G.. W. Russell says : — "No such idea as making a salaried office of the Mayorality was ever contemplated by the burgesses." This may be correct, ( but I doubt it; for I am informed that when Mr Thomas Wells was nominated for ( the office, it was upon the distinct understanding that a salary would be granted ; and that such salary should be paid to the firm of Wells and Soutter as compensation for the time that Mr Wells would be com- i pelled to devote to civic business. Am I i rightly informed ? Another question I ] should like to ask is, Would Mr Russell ] have taken the office of Mayor without a ] .salary being guaranteed ? If he would not, why should he grumble at Mr Gwynneth - being paid. The threats of the "bluff" party Ido not think worth much, except the indignation meeting. Let us have that by all means ; then we can hear the different opinions of the ratepayers upon Municipal matters. In my humble opinion, • Mr Editor, such " a one horse show as the village—for it is nothing else—of Cambridge, ought not to have been made a borough for many years to come, and I firmly 3 believe that it was done through the instrumentaly of one, and that it was selfinterest that caused him to do it. One " word to the councillors. If you want to be re-elected, drop nine tenths of—what are now the laughing-stock of the whole borough the by-laws, and only keep those that are really necessary. Learn by heart the 104 th section of the Municipal Corporations Act, 188G, which says—" No_ councillor shall vote upon, or take part in the discussion on any matter before the | council, in which he has directly or indirectly by himself or his partners any interest." If you will do that you will have the confidence of the ratepayers, and ( will be able to stand any amount of bluff ; ' and if not you will get the " cold shoulder " when September arrives, I trust, Mr Editor, you will pardon my writing at such length, but the matter is one that we in Cambridge look upon as very urgent.— | I am, Sir, yours obediently,

Southern Cross.