THE MAYOR AND THE MAJORITY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 15 April 1907, Page 2

THE MAYOR AND THE MAJORITY

To the Editor. Sir,—The quartette of the immortal six, embalmed in verse in your Friday's issue, were very free with their criticism of the Mayor, at the Theatre last evening. Four charges, according to your report, were hurled at me. First, my rulings were wrong. Supposing they were, it was still the duty of Cbuncillors to obey those rulings. Cr. Hampson might inform the public how the business of a Council, or any other public | body, can be carried on without the ruling of the Chairman being final—as stated in the City By-laws. But—were my rulings wrong? Only in one case have they been really chalenged, and that by an appeal to a sohcitor (very absurd to me), and in that case my ruling was upheld, which was only an affirmation of the practice of the Counci] for the last 16 years The second charge is; That I first supported the funding of the overdraft, and then "consistently opposed it " rhat is true in part. I did support the funding of so much of the overdraft as I£ Prnneilte<J b. the Muni«pal Buildings, £4500, and the then debit of the Gasworks, £3000; total, £7500. But the city solicitor advised us it was not Wai and since then I have consistently op*i^h7%P OU"cillors wh ° voted for Ending £19,700, are certainly indebted to ml for getting what I was sure was the real opinion of the solicitor of the Municipal Association and thus prevented an appeal by the Government auditor to the pockets of those Councillors who assented to it. The third charge is: That I have made charges against the City Surveyor, and in every case he has been exonerated. Is that so? I am quite aware that two committees were set up—the first on the motion of Cr Hampson. liut I do not think it is in accord with I arliamentiivy practice to set up a I Committee to investigate charges from I one side of the House only. Yet in the first case this was done, and two out of three were my avowed opponents. Nor do I think it parliamentary practice for a majority to force the adoption of the report of an investigating committee before the evidence had been circulated, so that every member of the Council could have an opportunity to study it. This was done in the case of the "timber transaction." In the reoond case the same two members, my consistent opponents, were appointed on tho motion of Cr Hounsell, and their colleague, who had shown some independence at the- last inquiry, was left out, and a^liei' added oq the aame side. The worth of thoir verdict was shown by the fact that the City Surveyor himself ordered clay to mix with the gravel on March 6th It appears to havo been of no moment to that committee that a concrete wall at schedule prices, to cost £440, was actually ordered by the City Surveyor without the consent or knowledge of the Council. The fourth charge ia: That I signed cheques of a, certain £4000 extras on the waterworks contract, and therefore am to be blamed. I may or may not have signed some of these cheques. But the fact that only the words "Progress payment on account of contract" was written across the voucher exonerated anyone whq did sign the cheques. They v. ere doing just what Cr. Hampson recommends, trusting the official., and were misled. Cv, H«»upso\i himself supported niy motion to se( out every item, extras included, in eyery future payment. Perhaps a few figures may enlighten this man of figures— Slowey's tender, £6846 2s Od. ■ Slowey's schedule worked out in three items upon which the extras were principally made: — 1000 cy. No. 1 concrete (5 to 1), 35s cy £1487 851 cy. No. 2 concrete (8 to . 1). SB" £4800 1000 cy. rock cutting, 3s 6d cy. £175 £6462 Langlands and Co.s tender, £7025." Langland's schedule, bare figures without quantities, not worked out : Concrete No. 1, 45s per cubic yard. Concrete No. 2, 47s 6d per cub. yd. Rock cutting, 14s per cubic yard. Does it not strike Cr Hampson that this is a curious schedule? Let him work it out on Slowey's quantities, which I may say nearly correspond with the City Surveyors quantities, and I think he will Bnd about £9719, and the tender was only £7025. Now I suppose Cr. Hampson will turn to the then Council and blame them for this. Well. Mr Baigent was Mayor then, and not myself. I was in England at the time the tender was accepted. But I don't think that the Council was to blame, seeing they had officials who ought tc have advised them. Now, as Cr. Hampson throws blame on such men as Crs. Webley, Mercer. Fairey, and myself for signing cheques perhaps he may not be angry if I re mind him of his own deficiencies. I suppose he will admit that, in conjunc tion with Cr. Harrison, he certified t< a voucher for a payment of 46s 6d per ton for 54 tons of coal, which I had the unpleasant task of stopping, pending' further inquiries, which action they endorsed, after inquiries showed that this coal was imported from Wellington by a Nelson firm for the Gasworks, and the price was correct. It was supposed to be imported to save the city being in darkness. So no more was said about it. Other points I need not touch upon ' but I think that I Have shown the only blame, lf it is blameworthy, that can bo attributed to me, is in "having unearthed things not pleasant for me to do, but certainly good for the ratepayers to know. I am, etc., . „„, „ J- PIPER, Mayor. April 13, 1907. J