The Star. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1868

Star (Christchurch), Issue 113, 23 September 1868, Page 2

The Star. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1868

4 __. our yesterday's issue, we commented ttt nome length on the reporl birmighfc up 'by the committee ot Borough Councillors, and shortly on tiie opinion iven by Dr. Foster. On fiirthi*r consideration of the subject, w<ato no reaaou to iii ter, in the slightest respect, the views then expressed. Off the contrary, we feel convinced fihat the Borough Council is in a very fi-lso position, and that the burgesses liave ft claim to Rome more explicit explanation than has yet beeu afforded hi the first place, it is necessary that the committee, having admitted that there was " error" and "negligence," should distinctly say against whimfcbeso are to be charged. It must be altogether unsatisfactory to the rate* payors to be told that " somebody" haa been guilty of error and negligent itt tho discharge of his duties; and it must be equally unsatisfactory to the oliict-r*. ol tne Council to be under a- genc:;;l imputation of this sort — lor, where the blame is not clearly ffx'^i', nli are liable to suspicion. 0;* Foster's opiuion is absolute^ ;.;.: \ liaustilile iv the doubts which it gives rise to. You have no sooner settled in your own mind that one p-w-t v; -,!ou:.ti'u! than another rise.iip, and so on act infinitum.. We pointed out yesterday that Dr Foster

-a*..* the proper course had boen pursued although that course was impossible. We come vow to another point. If the Burgess Roll is to be made out under the 68th section, as Dr Foster says, what on earth has tiie 52ud section got to do with the matter? The learned Doctor tells us first that a certain section must be discarded, but when he wishes to establish the fact that a certain course was impossible, he ;t once falls back upon this very section. All this is very confusing, and we appeal to the Borough Council to say whether they clearly understand the opinion of their legal adviser. It appears to us that they have read only the first sentence of that opinion, and that when they fouud Or Foster had "no doubt whatever " about the proper course having been pursued, ihey were quite content. There is still auother point which Dr Foster's opinion suggests. If the Burge.s Holl is to be made out under tho GSth section, and if it was impossible to comply with the provisions of that section, it follows — does it not ? — that there was no Burgess Roll at the election. And, if this is the case, uuder what roll, list, or enumeration of names, was the election conducted ? When was that list completed? By whom was it made out ? Who is responsible for its correctness ? It appears to us that between the two stools of the old and the new Act the burgesses have fallen to the ground. Neither Act has been complied with ; and one naturally asks — iv what position is the city? Above all, is the late election valid — for that point is by no means settled yet ? We think it can be shewu that the Town Clerk, if he did not make out a Burgess list, was in a position to do so. The GSth section of the Act says : — " In each original borough the ratepayers roll (if any) which shall * * * * * * * be in force in any city, town, ov district, or place converted into such original borough, at or immediately before the first constitution thereof under this Act shall forthwith by the Town Clerk be reduced if necessary into alphabetical order ***** and thereupon being signed by the said Clerk and forthwith delivered to the Mayor, shall become and be to all intents and put poses the Burgess Roll of the borough, as if made as hereinbefore provided. 1 ' Now, we intend to prove that there was, or ought to have been, a ratepayers roll in existence " at or immediately before " tht* first constitution of the borough uuder the Act. On April 2, 18G8, the Town Clerk intimated hy advertisement iv the newspapers that " t Ik. list of ratepayers is completed." Me also intimated that the list was open for inspection from April 2 to April 15, aud that any objections lodged would be heard on April LG Ou April 17 there appears iv the news papers a list of objections allowed. Ou May 6 the Town Clerk again intimates that a list has been prepared, and -thai it is open for inspection from May 20 to May 2G inclusive. Objections t-.i this list are requested to b_ st-nt in. which objections are to be heard on June 1. It does uot appear, from any public advertisement, what boc-ann: ut this list, but it is quite evident that it might have been, and ought to huve been, completed before June 10, <**i which day the borough \\&a cousti ruled. We may be wrong, but ir. ct.-taiuly appears to us that tin question iiinsfes ou the last-mentioned list. Were n.iy objections to it. lodged ? Were they lisposed of o« June 1? 1.1 .n, there must have been a complete ratepayers roil "at or immediately before" the constitution ot the borough. And, it that list was not completed, it ought to have been completed. The Town Clerk, if he had taken the trouble to read the Act ; the Mayor himself, if he had diligently discharged his duties, must have beeu aware that a rate payers roll would be required on or before June 10. And we contend that that list must have been,, or ought to liave been — we are not particular which — in existence at the proper time. If not, there was — we will not say " undue negligence," because we don't profess to know what tho phrase means — gross negligence on the part of those whose duty it was to attend to these matters. Still, there remains the doubt whether the late election is a valid one. What list, or roll was it made uuder ? The matter vow rests with the burgesses.