RETRENCHMENT AND TEETH GNASHING.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3499, 23 September 1882, Page 3

RETRENCHMENT AND TEETH GNASHING.

[To the Editor of the Daily Telegraph.] Sir, —But one opinion being expressed in this borough as to the desirability of the course proposed to he pursued by the Municipal Council, it may, perhaps, be fairly presumed that the letters that have lately flooded the columns of your contemporary were either written in the Herald office, or by the three or four individuals who may be affec'ed by a policy of retrenchment. That the basest of motives should be attributed to councillors by the authors of those letters might naturally be expected. It is the nature of some people to think that public bodies were created in order to bring into existence comfortable billets and large salaries for a select few ; in fact, that the Corporation was made for the servants, and not the servants for the Corporation. It has been too long apparent that a policy of " topsy-turvy-dom" (as your contemporary calls a retrenchment policy) was absolutely necessary to bring things back into their proper position; things have been upsidedown too long, and it is needful to turn them topsy-turvy to put them on their feet/ Let it be considered tor a moment that the general iate of Is in the £ only produces a revenue of £2894, and that tbe salaries of officials amount to over £1800, leaving but about £1000 for useful .expenditure, and the necessity for doing something in the topsy-turvy line must force itself upon the attention of every one not blinded by rage and disappointment. Then again, while the work required from some of those officials has been lessened, the salaries have been increased. As an example I may mention the fact, that, when Mr R. Williams entered the service ot the Corporation at £100 a year, he had to do very much more for his pay than what he is called upon to do now at double the salary. He had then not only to make out tbe rate demands and deliver them in person, but be bad to go oat and collect the money and give receipts. Now the demands are posted, and tbe ratepayers come to the office with the money. I should not have mentioned this but an attempt has been made to show that Mr Williams' case isexce.sively unjust tobim Tears have also been copiously she dover what has been improperly called the " dismissal " of the engineer and of the road overseer. The out-cry in tbe Herald would be better understood by the general public if the relationship between a certain official and one of tbe proprietors of that journal were fully known. The Herald fought tooth and nail to secure the appointment for the present engineer, and it is quite natural for it now to weep and gnash its hollow teeth at the prospect of a change. A correspondent, signing himself " Citizen," writing in the Herald tbis morning upon a subject that he evidently knows something about, says : —

Take, for example, the kerbing which has been constructed by contract. That in Carlyle-street presents a striking appearance on account of its irregularity, unevenness, and general rough appearance; that from the Union Bank to Knowles's corner fell so much in some places after the first rain (though ifc appeared a first-class job previously and could not fail being passed by the clerk of works) that ifc had to be relaid by the Corporation laborers immediately after. This, too, though the work cost a fourth more by contract than it would have cost if done by Corporation labor.

The writer has unwittingly shown how carelessly contract work has been permitted to be slummed ; and how the public money has been wasted through official carelessness. He acknowledges that through the contract price, beingonefourth more than what the work could be done for by day labor, the engineer (Mr Peppercorne, I think) could not have done his duty in recommending the Corporation to accept the tender ; farther, that the overseer kept his eyes closed during the performance of the job, and was deceived by outside appearances on its completion. I thiuk nothing stronger could have been advanced in favor of a change, because the case cited is only an isolated one, whereas the councillors may be acquainted with others in other parts of the borough. What I am quite certain of is this—that the Council is perfectly well aware of what it is about; that all the letters that can be published will not alter its intention; and that from one end of the borough to the other the course it is pursuing has met with the confidence and the hearty approval of the ratepayers. —I am, &c, Ojve who knows, Napier, September 23,1882.