BOROUGH ECONOMY.

Hastings Standard, Issue 201, 19 December 1896, Page 2

BOROUGH ECONOMY.

[To the Editor.] Sir, —As the Council seem to be struck economical just now, will you allow me to ask them for particulars of the famous Scott case. The story as told to me is this (and its aboslute truth is" vouched for by a ('ouncilloii Scott wanted £126 to settle up a drainage contract. The Council refused to pay, and went to law. The case was carried on for some time and eventually the Council won it (??) Some time after a question was asked as to what it had cost the ratepayers to win the case, and the reply of the presiding genius was £7OO. But, yon see, tlioir honor was saved even at a cost of £7OO to the ratepayers for which they got nothing! Another ease is on record where a solicitor gave an opinion about a yard long at a cost of many guineas. The Council went into committee and discussed it. The opinion didn't suit. At next meeting the same gentleman wrote to say that he had overlooked Section Act and found that his former opinicn was wrong. He submitted some more yards in the opposite direction, and was duly paid for the total length of the various opinions. You may well remark that £ioo for legal charges appears high. It is quite excusable, as you haven't had time to get used to our funny ways of doing things yet. Our rates are only for the support- of foreign firms and people of the right color.—l am, &c., Tacks. Hastings, Dec. 19th, 1896. THE HASTINGS BOROUGH COUNCIL AND ITS FINANCIAL POSITION. [To The Editor.] Sie,—Looking over your report of business transacted at the last meeting of the Council I see that the Mayor, replying to eulogistic speeches by Crs Wellwood and Murdoch, said "he was overwhelmed with the tributes of praise trumpeted forth by those two councillors." I should think he would be. The Mayor said that in 1893, when he first took the chair, which had been vacated by Mr George Ellis, the overdraft was £1,597, and to-day it was £2,400. I think it would have been more to the point if he had laid the whole facts before the ratepayers. When the present Mayor took office the overdraft was :—General account with about £3OO due for rates, £1,597: special loan account £18,000; total £19,597. Previous to 1893 tuere was a mortgage of £6OO on the Council Chambers and £4O due for interest. This Mayor Ellis paid off out of the general account. Then there was the first case of Masters, which the Council lost, with £IOO damages and as much more expenses. All this was paid by Mayor Ellis out of the general account. What is the real position now ? From 1893 the Council have borrowed £2OOO from the Government Insurance Department at o-i per cent and £3OOO from the bank at 6 per cent; thereby bringing the total of the special loan account up to £23,000. Now, for the general account. A few months ago, the Council voted the Mayor £IOO, at a time when the account was illegally overdrawn, the overdraft exceeding £3OOO. Any ratepayer was entitled to have taken legal proceedings against the Council for illegally spending the ratepayers' money. Since 1893 the revenue has been much increased, and the rates have been raised to the legal point of Is 3d in the £. Cr Murdoch may congratulate himself, but I question whether the ratepayers are so highly impressed with the state of affairs. Cr AVellwood has a great deal to gush about. Surely he must have forgotten the time that he retired from the Mayoral chair. The overdraft at that time stood at £llsO, and the Council recognised their inability to offer the first Mayor a decent honararium, even although he had had the responsibilty of spending thousands of pounds on the drainage scheme. I need not refer here to the scandalous jobbery which was brought to light in connection with some of the drainage contracts, but let this item of history serve to show how things have changed since then. As the Council could not vote Mr Wellwood any money they decided to get a suitable portrait of him which now hangs in the Council chamber as a slight recognition of his services. The cost was £8 8s ; Cr Fitzlioy was alone in voting against such wasteful extravagance, and later on he sued those who voted for the resolution and obtained judgment for the £8 8s and £5 5s costs, which the Councillors who voted for the picture had to pay out of their own pockets. Anyone who doubts this can verify the statement from the Council's books. If there is one independent councillor he should insist that a statement be placed on the table showing the total amount of money borrowed and the price of interest being paid for it. I think even Cr Murdoch will admit that he knows more about quadrillaterals than he does about finance: —Dr. to the Government Insurance Department £20,000 and to the Bank £6,000 at 6 per cent., or a total of £26,000. I defy any member of the Council to challenge the correctness of the figures.—l am, Finance.