The Poverty Bay Herald AND East Coast News Letter. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VII, Issue 1133, 29 September 1880, Page 2

The Poverty Bay Herald AND East Coast News Letter. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING.

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1880.

Some three or four months back a member of the General Assembly — we think it was Mr. William Swanson, during a discussion upon the question of subsidies to local bodies, drew attention to the fact that he had reason to believe the Auditors of Borough Councils bad been accustomed to certify to expenditure of moneys which were not authorised -under "The Municipal Corporations Act," and that by so doing the revenues raised from the pockets of ratepayers were frequently misapplied. Among the members of corporate bodies there has been a sort of belief that the duties of Boi'ougb and County Auditors are simply to see that moneys received have been duly placed to the credit of local bodies by whom they have been raised, and that when expended their business is to look to the vouchers and ascertain that receipts have been obtained. In short, that v Auditors'" powers do not exceed those which pertain to an inspection of cash-book and ledger. This discussion in the Assembly aroused the attention of the Dunedin City Council, aud the highest legal authorities having been consulted, it was ascertained tbat the duties of Auditors to Borough and County corporate bodies were veiy much in excess of what with many local bodies had hitherto been considered the oase. Auditors were informed that it was their business not only to check accounts, examine vouchers, look to the entries of the bank pass-book, and compare them with the receipts, but it was most imperative they they should not sign any audit sheet, or pass accounts, in which moneys disbursed were not distinctly specified \ as authorised in the Act or the Amendments under which the Auditors hold tbeir office. Farther, that the Auditors under " The Municipal Corporations Act " were elected by the ratepayers, and were altogether independant of, and in no way answerable to the authority of Municipal Councils ; tbat the special duty of Auditors was to protect tbe interests of the ratepayers, and to prevent local bodies expending their revenues for purposes not authorised. When high legal opinion was thus obtained, Auditors at once come to look into things, and they found that accounts bad been sanctioned, approved, and passed for payment, which was, by the Act illegal. And so it came about in Dunedin, Christchurch, Wellington, Hokitika, Invercargill and other places, items passed by the Council have been objected to and the Chairmen of such Councils have been informed that the signers of the cheques for illigal payments must refund the amounts before the audit sheets could be signed. We have drawn attention to this subject from what occurred at a meeting of the Borough Coiincil last evening, when through the reading of minutes of a previous meeting it was shown that the Council had voted a sum of £30 in aid of the better ordering of the cemetery. We imagine that no one will be found who would object to the cemetery being kept in proper order, for if there is anything

we should regard with reverence it is " God's Acre," where rest the mortal remains of those so many of ns hold in affectionate remembrance, and where, when our time comes, we shall be taken to as our last resting-place. No one will feel inclined to censure the Council for voting the thirty pounds for such a purpose. But then to have done this was illegal, and altogether ultra vires. If the Council can vote £30 for the cemetery at Makaraka, it can do the same for a cemetery at Tolago Bay, or in fact for ;i cemetery in any part of Cook County, or for that matter anywhere out of Cook County. The reply to an objection raised last night by a Councillor as to the legality of voting this money was, tbat in no part of tbe Municipal Corporations Act does it state that money must iwt be spent on cemeteries. This is quite true. Neither does the Act say that the Council must not spend money on fire-works, or pic-nics, or in making balloons, or on boating excursions, or giving balls, or contributing towards a billiard tournament, et cetera. The Act distinctly states what things Corporate moneys may be spent on, and common reason will say, and the law will declare that moneys may only be so expended, and upon no other thing else. Last night it was also observed the Council had passed for pay ment carriage hire for the conveying of two Parliamentary visitors to view the country round about on one Sunday morning! It need scarcely be said that in no part of the Cor por tions Act is such an expenditure recognized. If such were the case, Councils might be continually enjoying themselves at the expense of the ratepayers by giving " outings " to all sorts of people coming from afar to look at us and our district. ' It is well, then, the law should impose a safe-guard, which it has done, by allowing ratepayers to choose their own Auditors in order to pi-event the expenditure of money not authorised as according to law. It is a veiy good thing to give aid to a cemetery, and it is a very courteous thing for a civic body to receive and entertain Parliamentary Ministers, but for neither of these must the funds of the Corporation be drawn against. Our readers will perceive that if the law is permitted to be infringed in one matter, it would give encouragement to infringe it in many other matters. Some of the Councillors last night expressed their -willingness to pay their share of the cemetery contribution out of their own pockets. If all the Councillors do this the difficulty will have ended. But we do not see why Councillors in particular should pay money out of their own pockets for an object all of us should contribute towards. Only let it be done according to law, and in a proper way.

A letter was read at the Borough Council last evening from Mr. W. L. Rees, which finds a place in our columns of this evening's issue. The letter asked permission to levy tolls, on the bridge which is to cross the Taraheru River opposite Peel street or Lowe street, as may be found most convenient or desirable. It also asks that the Council should offer encouragement to forwarding the con nection between the new settlement known as the Whataupoko Block with Gisborne. It will be seen by our report that the Council in set resolutions, moved and carried, is desirous ot giving all encouragement to the enterprise. As was said by Councillors, it would be wrong and highly injurious to the interests of the town and the districts that any obstructions should be thrown in the way. Mr. Rees is desirous to open up a large block of land for settlement, and if this be done Gisborne will certainly be advantaged. Of course the levying of bridge tolls for dray traffic cannot tend to enhance the value of land, because it will be felt the carrying of produce to market or to the port will be met with a tax. This, however, is a matter for those interested in the sale of the Whataupoko sections to consider for themselves. The Council have said in effect that Mr. Rees and the other trustees shall meet with no opposition from tbat body, and this is all we presume that can be desired or looked for.

Co-OPEItATirE establishments for the conversion of milk into cheese and butter, and for the rearing of pigs to be converted into bacon and hams, were stronglyadvocated in the columns of the Hervld some months ago by the writer. He explained to Mr. A. Graham, to Mr. W. Adair and others, what had been done, and with so much success in the Western districts of Victoria, where co-operative dairy-farming is carried on with so much success. These gentlemen, to whom the subject was broached, greatly approved of the scheme, and if we remember rightly, promised their assistance, but at the same time looked to the farmers themselves to initiate and organise the system proposed. We will, in our next issue, explain the methods adopted under the scheme of co-operative farming in Victoria by which farmers can always secure a market for their produce at wellequalised and profitable I'ates. In the meantime, we furnish our readers with a calculation made by Mr. W. C. Walsh, the well known dairyman, resident at Makaraka. Mr. Walsh takes 50 cows as the basis of his calculation. These cows will average a yield of three gallons of milk a day,

which, at fourpence a gallon, would return 50s a day for each of the seven days in the week. The cost of producing the above milk is estimated as follows : — Three men at 25s per week and keep, the keep being reckoned at 10s per week for each man. But besides the milk these three hands would produce, a return of 20s per week in the product of fodder for the cows. Then the original value of the cow in a semi-wild state would be enhanced at least <£. r > per head, leaving out the value of the progeny which also bears an increased value to the extent of £1. Surely there should be profit enough in this to place the owners of cows on a much more favourable footing than at present, and we trust that no time will be lost in bringing the proposed scheme into operation.