THE BOROUGH DEADLOCK.

Bush Advocate, Volume XX, Issue 937, 3 February 1908, Page 4

THE BOROUGH DEADLOCK.

On p:«ii«' 7 oi this issiu- we print the lull text of Mr Martin's opinion on the- features of the borough deadlock, which were- Mibmittcd to him, and we commend it to the careful consideration of all who have followed the progress of our municipal fiasco. Mr Martin i.s the .solicitor to the Municipal Association, and having in this capacity made a special study of municipal law, he is recognised as tho highest legal authority on the subject in the dominion. We may, therefore, accept his opinion, so far as it goes, as practically final. Whether it will be so accepted by tbe Mayor and Councillors remains to lie seen. As the 3fnyor was not consulted on the question of obtaining the opinion., and had no part in chawing up the order of reference to Mr Martin, lie might be- disposed to repudiate the whole affair, as not being a Council matter. Had he not visited Mr Martin he would certainly have been entitled to take up this attitude but as he has evidently placed his views before the solicitor it is a question whether lie is not thereby just as much bound in honor by Iho opinion as any of the Councillors. It will be a matter for regret if its consideration to-morrow night cannot be approached in this spirit, because there is in Mr Martin's opinion a reasonable basis of settlement, which both parties can accept without much injury to their amour proprc. Mr Martin has dearly defined the relationship of the Council to the ratepayers, and of the Mayor to the Council, so that each can now plainly see what their obvious duty is. and it will be a thousand pities if any soii'iu-^ or iJI-tV.'liny l>r.>cl !)_v tho diction which has prevailed slit/iild )>ro\«'iit either the Mnym* or the Councillors agreeing to do that duty, however unpalatable it might be. fn analysing Mr Martin's opinion, it will, perhaps, be simplest to take the various events which led up to the deadlock, in their relative sequence, so that the thread of the argument • ;.)) I).- ihe snore easily followed. 11l

the. first \>h\cv. then, Mr Martin holds.— (1.) Thai the Council w:is quite within its rights in deciding to regrade High street, and the Mayor's argument thai it could not be 'done because the work was not specifically provided lor on the estimates, is ruled out of court. <2.) That the Council was in no way hound to take cognisance of the resolution passed l>y the- public meeting; of TiHep-.tycrs, lv , v ot - -J,,. p ra y- or o j[ t \ u . petition which was subsequently presented, asking that that resolution be ij;iven elYoet to. ■ (3.) That the Mayor was not justified in refusing to accept Cr Collett's motion, embracing a reply which he (Cr Collett) desired to send to the petitioners, that motion having been regularly proposed and seconded, and not being an illegal one, or in contravention of the Standing Orders. (>.) That the Mayor was justified iv refusing to receive Cr Hansom's met ion proposing to re-grade High strict by day labor, on the ground thiii as there was already a resolution on the. books of tho Council affirming that this work was to be done. by contract, it was not competent for any Councillor to move that it be done by day labor until the first resolution was rescinded. _(■■"».) That the Mayor was not justified in refusing to take. Cr Driimmond's motion for the now scheme for re-grading High street, as the Standing Order under which he ruled (22) did not give him power to reject motions regularly moved and seconded, unless such motions were contrary to htw. in in contravention of the Standing Orders. (<).) That the. Mayor was in error in assuming thai' two Councillors and iho treasurer could pay accounts without^ i lie authority of the Council. (7.) That the- Works Committee was not justified in stopping the works in progress in tho borough unless they were specifically authorised by tho (Vuneil to do so. (8.) That the. Council must obey the ruling of tho chair, whether \hey agrees wiih that ruling or not. Those, are tho findings which, we think, may be fairly deduced from Mr Martin's opinion so far as that opinion is clear and definite. We regret to say that in one respect it is not clear and definite. For example, his answer to question 4 is simply no answer at all. He was asked to say what remedy the Council had if the Mayor refused to put motions, and he proceeds to tell them what they may do if a motion is put. Mr Martin could not have misunderstood the question, and we can only suppose that he was diffident about admitting an evident weakness in the Municipal Corporations Act. which provides no machinery to compel a Mayor to put a motion if he is determined not to do so. The only remedy the Council has under such circumstances is to take the extreme step of having the obstructing Mayor removed From office. With ihe rest ot Mr Mai tin's opinion we entirely agree, tor he pracu'cally endorses everything we have said by way oi erii icisni upon the position which has arisen. It is now more than over clear to us that the Mayor's methods of dealing w iih tho situation were, to s:iv the least, unfortunate. He will doubtless poinL to the fact that Mr Martin upholds him in his refusal to take Cr Ransom's motion, but we will just say in that connection, as ue siiid on 20th January, that if he | h;:d been frank with Cr Knnsoin, and explained why he could not take, that motion, the present trouble nevor would have arisen. There is one other point in connection with tho opinion which requires elucidation. Mr Martin lays it. down that the Council must obey the ruling of the chair. No one will dispute so obvious a conclusion, but this must not be construed to moan thai tho Mayor is thereby entitled to pervert theStanding Orders so that he obtains a power which is quite unconstitutional. It is always assumed that he will rule ill accordance with the constitution of the body over which he presides, and in accordance with parliamentary usage. If he exceeds his duty in this respect, then, while no member of a local body may use violence or abuse towards his chairman for ruling against him. he is entitled to employ every constitutional means at his disposal to resist a ruling which iv its effect amounts to tyranny. This undoubtedly would have been the effect of tho Mayor's interpretation of Standing Order 22, if it had been allowed to go unchallenged, although ho probably did not mean it in that way. Wo, at least, arc prepared to give him credit for acting in the. sincere belief that he was within his rights, and that the interests of the ratepayers demanded that he should make n stand. He has made his stand, but we hope he will now see that ho has been fighting along wrong lines, and thai unless he has a majority of the Councillors with him he cannot prevent ihe Council having its way without seriously endangering one of the fundamental principle* of local government. The way is being cleared by the. Councillors to enable them to re in (reduce their regrading scheme in a modified form, and on a basis to which there- can be but little objection, so that if a preliminary meeting could be ailange-i ;m<] <i niiitiuil i!mir-rsv,)w(n\y iwvmHl -.a. Uie (due is opportune Jo )<>( hy clones be bylines and once more set the municipal machinery running wills its woiiied smoothness.