Vincent County Council: A Failure. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2076, 7 December 1893, Page 21

Vincent County Council : A Failure. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, — Since writing you on the above subject a new council has been elected. All the old members, except one, constitute the present council, the contested seats having been won by promising. I here give the exact words from Mr W. G. Stronach's manifesto to the ratepayers, which appeared in a contemporary : — " My views for the future working of the council are as follow : — (1) Reduction of chairman's travelling expenses as well as members', and (2) the amalgamation of the offices of engineer and county clerk into one." At the first meeting of the new council on the 22nd inst , the following reductions were agreed on, to take place from Ist January 1894 : — Engineer's salary to be reduced from £350 to £250 ; clerk's salary, from £250 to £200; A. Keith's salary, from £ LOO to £85 ; councillors' travelling expenses, from £1 Is to 10a 6d, and Is mileage only one way ; all expenditure to be reduced except; actual necessities ; and the dog tax collector's services to be dispensed with, the clerk to collect at 6d per dog. At the same meeting a letter was read from D. Nicholson, a ratepayer, asking whether councillors were allowed 3s 6d per mile travelling expenses. Cr Denniston, from his place at the council table, answered the question thus :—": — " Regarding the inquiry re Z$ 6d being allowed councillors, he had publicly stated it was buakum, as none of them received it, as she act only allowed Is per mile." I believe it is perfecbly true that Mr Denniston did state this when addressing the ratepayers asking for re-election, and that his success was mainly due to assuring the meeting that they only received Is per mile as travelling expenses. He led them to believe that was all they received, and also said that Mr Chappie was wrong in his figures. It is quite possible I was wrong, but at the same time it was on the right side for my argument ; and I say now that the Vincent County councillors received more than 4s per mile travelling expenses — or, to put it more plainly, for the last three years they have received Is per mile each way and £11? per day. By the resolution of the 22ud inst. this is exactly cut in half. lam not in a position to say what amount Cr Denniston received, but he should have received as his share for 50 miles (to Clyde and back) 50s and two days at £1 Is, £2 2s, making £4 12s each meeting. Now I say that in accordance with "The Counties Act 1886" he is only entitled to receive 255, and that by his own showing at last council meeting. I now challenge Cr Denniston in particular, and in fact the whole council, to prove that I am wrong in my figures. I have taken the amount from their own balance sheet, and if there is anything wrong it is with themselves and not me. In conclusion I would suggest to Cr Denniston that he answer this, and state how many times he journeyed from his home to Clyde to attend meetings ab Clyde, and the amount o£ money he received for same. — I am, &c, John Cols Chapple. Ophir, November 30.