TOWN EDITION. Evening Post. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26,1881. SCANDALOUS LAXITY.

Evening Post, Volume XXII, Issue 74, 26 September 1881, Page 2

TOWN EDITION. Evening Post. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1881. SCANDALOUS LAXITY.

? In discuss : ng the proposal of Councillor Diver, that the Town Clerk should be a solicitor, we confined ourselves strictly to the main point at issue, and dealt with the case meiely on its general merits. The collateral matters involved were too numerous and important to be treated within the limits of a single article, and this explains the

absence of any allusion in our former article to various points brought out in the City Council debate, which have attracted considerable public comment. To one or two of these we now purpose to devote some little attention. First of all stands the curious discovery by Councillor Diver, that in one of the City Solicitor's bill of ccst3 a total of w659, which was carried forward from the bottom of one page, waa brought forward on the next as J679 — a nice little jump of J320 at one fell swoop in the mere turning of a leaf. That ia to say, the total of one page's charges amounted to .£'s9, and this was quietly entered in another place as .£79. As this extraordinary statement was not only undisputed and unexplained, bnt was distinctly admitted by Councillor Logan in the very damaging extenuation he put forward, we are bonnd to accept it implicitly as accurate. Conncillor Loqan's " plea in mitigation " was that *' The error of £20 wa3 not lost to the Corporation, as the City Solicitor had agreed to accept iiloO, which was less than the original amount." This is still more puzzling. What does it really mean ? Does Councillor Logan mean to assert that the City Solicitor accepted J631 less than the original amount because he was aware of this £20 having been thus singularly interpolated? We can hardly suppose so, because that would imply a very serious charge, and we doubt if the City Solicitor would thank him for such a line of advocacy. But if that is not what he meant, however clearly it may seem to be implied, then it is utterly irrelevant and no defence at all. If the City Solicitor consented to accept J63L less than the total amount of his charges ia tint particular case, it is reasonable to assume that it was not because an extra £2,0 had slipped into hi 3 bill between the pages, as it were, but was intended as a reduct'on on the total amount of his legitimate charges correctly added up. If so, the Corporation clearly lost .£2O by the error in the bill, as the i;3l reduction would have applied equally to the accurate total purged ot the spurious .£2O. Ho one will imagine that the City Solicitor pretended to take off £-11 when in reality he wa3 only taking off .fill, or that the .£2O was added in order to swell the apparent reduction. Yet this is the only logical deduction from Councillor Logan's very fcingular defence. The City Solicitor may well exclaim " Save me from my friends ! " Now we say plainly, and at once, that wo entirely reject Councillor Logan's plea, which, as we have shown, is either totally irrelevant, or elae contains an implication which no one who knows the City Solicitor will for one moment entertain. We are perfectly satisfied that the carrying forward of .£2O too much was a pure inadvertence, and that there was not the slightest intention of making a wilful overcharge. But the disagreeable and alarming feature is this : — How did such a large and palpable error in computation escape the notice of all those officers whom the city pays to keep its accounts ? If this very obvious error of £20 can pass unnoticed in one acconnt, what security have we that there is not equal laxity and carelessness in all the other accounts? For the error did not occur in the addition, it was Biniply in the transcription — in entering at the top of the next page the figures with which one page ended. If £h9 carried forward reappears as i>79, we do not see why .£SOO should not reappear as .£7OO, or .£SOOO as i£7ooo. How much, we wonder, have the ratepayers already lost through this neglect on the part of their servants ? It is notorious that some years ago a contractor was paid a cheque for nearly .£3OOO on account of a claim, of which, whan, owing to peculiar circumstances, it was investigated by a special committee, one item, amounting to more than one-third of the whole, was detected by the consulting engineer to have been previously defrayed. That item of over iSIOOO passed the Corporation officials undetected as this .£2O ba3 now escaped their notice. How many more items of the kind are paid unquestioned P This ia a most serious matter as affecting the city finances and their present management. A radical reform is evidently needed somewhere. This £20 error, more than 10 per cent, of the whole amount, was successively passed by the City Solicitor, the Town Clerk, the Finance. Committee, and the City Auditors. Then who on earth are we to look to to check tho accounts sent in? The City Solicitor ought never to have allowed such an incorrect statement of accounts to leave his office with his signatnre attached. The Town Clerk ought not to have permitted it to go before the Finance Committee without the error being detected and pointed out. The Finance Committee, if they are of any use at at all should certainly have been compotent to find out such a palpable blunder. The City Auditors might just as well be dispensed with altogether if they do not check tho municipal accounts with sufficient care to pick out so very obvious a mistake. Ono conncillor remarked that " the auditors did not add up their accounts " Then assuredly they ought to do so. How can they venture to pledge their professional reputation for the correctness of their report when they have not taken the trouble to ascertain if that report be a true one ? Nay, as we have already pointed out, it waa not even an error in the addition, but simply one of transcription. It needed merely to compare the sums *' brought forward" with those "carried forward" to discover the error instantly, and if tho auditors do not take this small trouble, we really do not know what use they are at all. They do not refuse to pass illegal expenditure, but say that is not their business, as they have only to check the correctness of the accounts submitted to them. When these accounts are shown to have been passed although g'aringly incorreot, then we are told they " don't add up the accounts." Does not all this go to show that the present system of audit ia a rank farce, and that a complete alteration is urgently demanded. What private firm or trading company would submit to such laxity and neglect as is shown by this last accidental revelation? It is high time that a sweeping change was made. Alter these disquieting disclosures as to the free-and-easy way in which the ratepayers' money is flung about, there will be a most unpleasant feeling of general insecurity until the whole subject is probed to the very bottom. The matter cannot with propriety be allowed to rest where it is, and the public have a right to demand that the present uncertainty which exists as to who is responsible for tho proper paying away of their money shall be promptly removed. As it is, nobody appears to admit any responsibility at all for ascertaining that the accounts are correct, and that public money ib not paid away unless it is due. Now that the scandalously lax system which prevails has been exposed through this one instance, it is by no means improbable that extensive advantage may be taken of it by unscrupulous persons. No one can tell how much of the money for which the citizens are so heavily rated has been wronef ully paid away. It is confessed that no adequate check exists against misappropriation. The sooner one of some kind is provided the better. The present state of affairs reflects the gravest discredit upon those who are responsible for it, and cannot be permitted to continue, at any rate, without a very decided protest.