Correspondence.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 537, 8 February 1870, Page 3

Correspondence.

••» THE CITY COUNCIL AND CONTRACTS. TO THE EDITOR OP THE STAR. Sir, — I see by the reports in the papers that Councillor Hart, at a late meeting of the ( ity Council, submitted a resolution fiat no member of that Council should supply any goods, do any work, or participate in any profit arising from any coutract, during the time he was a member of such Council. That this resolution was not unanimously carried, and instantly carried too, does not argue much for the disinterestedness of come of our Council. I am surprised that no Councillor was ever found fearless enough to bring forward and expose this grasping selfishness before, and I am also surprised that some citizen, or yourself, Mr Editor, who have written a good deal on the purity of Municipal elections, had not taken the matter in hand, and have given those innocent members such a precious ear-wigging that they would never forget, and which they most richly deserve. I do not say our Council is worse than any other body of men, perhaps, situated as they are. We all know what human nature is ; when placed in the way of temptation, self-interest raises a cloud so thick that the human eye generally cannot see through it. But the reading of the 37th clause is so plain that he who runs may read, and if our Council will not see it, it ia another proof of the truth of the old adage that ''there's none so blind as those who will not see." But the wording is so clear as to admit of no dispute, and under it no Councillor can supply the city with the smallest article and retain his seat. But every member of a City Coun cii, even if no such law existed, ought to have too much respect for himself and his position as a City Councillor to touch the city funds so long as he held a seat in the City Council ; but it appears it is not so, but that some of the members have been doing work and supplyiug the Council to a pretty large extent, and the paltry excuse put forward in one case that I have heard of, that it was only one paiticular member that could supply them in one instance, is simply ridiculous. There is no member of that Council in a position to supply the city with anything whatever that may not be got as r<adi!y from persons who are not in the Council, and then no suspicion of injustice or unfairness could possibly attach to members at all; but so long as this member is doing work, and that member supplying goods, with no independent authority to look after tin one or check the other — nobody to sa\ whether the work done in many cases is done properly — whether the charges aie fair or excessive— so long will taxpayers makt remarks (and very unpleasant ones, too) oi he proceedings of Councillors, whose chn meters and conduct as public men ou^Kt t be placed far ahove the reach of suspicion;

besides, such a course is, and cannot but bp, subversive of all good government, and anything but what Municipal government was intended to be. Who, I would like to ask, ever supposed tbat the Municipal Act, or its framer. for a moment contemplated three individuals forming a Works Committee, meeting on a Monday morning to pass their own accounts (prepared, probably, with their own hands), meeting again on Monday night, and voting the rates of the city to pay their own bills, meeting again on Tuesday morning to sign their own cheques, pocket the money, and no more being heard of the matter ? It is positive absurdity to suppose such a state of things was ever contemplated, nnd it must, and will, open the door to a vast amount of abuse if it be not nipped in the bud. I suppose Mr Hart will, for a time, find himself in a hornet's nest for interfering with the snug profits his disinterested bro her Councillors have been making; but I have not the least fear on his account, as I happen to know that he can take any amount of stinging without being hurt. But " Let him still his righteous course pursue, For all his foes are foes to virtue too." Are the nice plums, I would ask, whiih fall, it seems, to the City Councillors .me cause of the anxiety of many to obtain seats in the Council ? I hope not ; but in times like the present, when trade is nearly at a standstill, and when tradesmen scarcely know where to turn or look for a shilling, a seat in our Conncil is, to some extent at least, a real god-send, aud worth a struggle to obtain, since whatever work they do, or whatever goods they supply, they can cha ge their own price and take the city rates to pay themselves with, thereby ensuring a certain amount of trade, and, what is invaluable at the present moment, ready money for it, having, as I said before, the city rates in their own hands to pay themselves with. Dr Foster's interpretation of clauses 37 and 138, on the whole, may be that it is legally right for Councillors to trade with themselves on behalf of the city, charge their own prices, be they what they may, and pocket the profits; but if it be legally right, it is morally wrong, and if this matter is pressed to an issue (and I have no doubt now but it will be), we may probably see that some of our disinterested Councillors mny not feel inclined to lose so much valuable time and display such energy and zeal for the g^d only of their fellow-citizens as they have done. But, Sir, if men only get into the Council for the sake of the money they can get out of the Council, the sooner they are out altogether the better for the pockets of the ratepayers, of whom I am one. Your obedient servant, STIR 'EM UP.