Untitled

Bruce Herald, Volume VII, Issue 650, 17 November 1874, Page 5

We cannot pass over in silence the somewhat peculiar manner in which the Milton Municipal Council reiolved upon an expenditure, involving nearly £300, for the purpose of widen: ing Eden street. Into the necessity for the purchase, we do not intend to enter, and we do not think the sum charged by Mr Soutter, for his land, was anything but fair and reasonable. But what we would draw attention to, in the first place, is the conduct of certain Councillors in this matter. Councillor Wilson, who in au houest and straightforward manner, opposed the motion for expending the money, bad to interfere with some persistence, to prevent the Mayor from proceeding ir> a fashion, the gross illegality of which could only be excused on the ground of incompetence to fill his office. During a desultory discussion which ensued, Councillors Henderson, Inglis, and Lane, supported Councillor Wilson in his opposition. But when the question came to be put, whilst there only voted for the resolution Councillors Jones and White, lo and behold, Councillor Wilson was left by himself to vote against it. Councillors Henderon, Lane, Inglis, did not vote. Now, such a course as these gentlemen pursued, deserves severe condemnation. Either it was or was not right to spend the money in question. These three gentlemen said it was not right, but declined to record their votes, and so to secure the end which they considered just. Had they held their tongues and not voted, it might have been pleaded, in excuse, that they had no opinions at all, and such an excuse would not have seemed strange to those who know these astute Municipal representatives. This excuse, though a poor one, would still have been an excuse, but nothing can be said in extenuation of gentlemen who deliberately express their opinions that a certain large sum of money should not be spent, and then by declining to vote, sanction its expenditure. For Councillor Inglis this was a remarkable occasion. This, we believe, was the first time he had expressed an opinion since he entered the Council. Evidently considering that his speech would not procure him a reputation for wisdom, he had hitherto resolved to assume the role of. the Liverpool parrot, and to be thought better of for his silence. But on the night in question he became sufficiently verbose to speak three words against the expenditure of money for widening Edenstreet. He stopped there, however, and did not vote, so that he practically, by opening his mouth, has merely, added another argument iv favor of hjs u,B€l«iisn«iß in the Coos*

oil. As we have said, this is not a question o whether or no it was right to spend th nuuicipal funds in purchasing Mr Soutter' .and. This is a question as to whether gentle tnen are worthy of being Municipal Cpun sillors who will, by refusing to vote, permit . large expenditure of which they disapprove md which, by voting, they could effectualh prevent. We fancy the ratepayers will, oi the first opportunity, answer that question satisfactorily. We have not much more ti my of this matter, unless, indeed, it be tc point out the thoroughly Irish reasoning oi Mr James Elder Brown, who proposed fry paying the money out of Municipal rente, license fees, &c, to save the ratepayers' pockets. The robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul 'tyle of such a proposition is too obvious fr > need comment. There needs but one further remark xipon this subject, and that is this : There are private individuals who should have >aid for the widening of Eden-street out o. ;heir own pockets.