Wellington Independent SATURDAY, JULY 29, 1871.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue XXVI, 29 July 1871, Page 2

Wellington Independent SATURDAY, JULY 29, 1871.

Mv John Plimmku has issued a cireuliir to the electors of the city of Wellington ! We by no means mean to imply that such a step is improper, thoughitisunusual, and though tho same end would have been attained if he had adopted tho usual course of explaining his reasons for resigning at a public meeting of the ward which he represented, in virtho of tho casting vote of the Returning Officer. lie had a perfect right to adopt what course ho pleased, and he has chosen this way of putting himself right with his fellow-citizens. Wo are not going to criticise the production as we should foci disposed to do with an ordinary literary effusion,- believing that many estimable citizens might bo of groat service as City Councillors, whose writings would betray a very partial acquaintance with Priscian or Lindley Murray. What wo do insist on, however, in such public manifestos as the one before us is, that they shall neither state nor imply anything beyond the facts of the case. We will overlook any inaccuracy of expression, but we must insist upon its correctness as to facts ; it may be deficient in grammatical concords; but all its statements must be in accordance with truth. Now, it is exactly because the statement of Mr Pliinmer is contrary to what we hope to show are the facts, that we take exception to it ; and it is because it may possibly prejudice the public mind we thus early give our opinion of it. The circular opens with the assumption — a very gratuitous one, we believe — that " some explanation is due to the citizens of Wellington of the late proceedings between tho Provincial Govern-

meut, and the City Corporation, in respect of the reclaimed land and Queen's wharf." If this means anything, it implies that the Council which lately rejoiced in Mr Plimmer as a member have kept back something from the citizens, or have misrepresented the state of affairs so grossly that " some explanation is due." We search in vaia, however, in this pretentious circular to discover any single new fact it puts before the public. It tells us indeed something that is new, but, unfortunately for Mr Plimmer, not true. We cannot criticise it sentence by sentence, although we are bound to say there is scarely one sentence in the whole of it that is not more or less exceptionable. That the city for £50,000 should acquire a property that has confessedly cost the province £107,000 does not on the face of it, seem a very bad bargain. Granted, for the sake of argument, that Mr Plimmer is right in saying that " the land belonged to the city by right," is it anything very lamentable that by paying £50,000, the city should secure an indefeasable title to it, after it has been improved by £57,000 more than the purchase money ? The next grievauce of Mr Plimmer (but it is almost a pity to deprive him of the pleasure of a grievance) is that £9,750 due from the Provincial Government is not allowed as part payment for the land and wharf. Now this sum of £0750 has "exercised" us a g.eat deal. We have ransacked all tho acts Provincial and General that seemed to furnish any clue to it; but we have ransacked in vain. Is T o such sum, by any manner of computation known to us, can we find to the credit of the city funds. The only thing at all bearing on it that we have been able to discover is the fifty-fifth section of the Town Board Act, 1805, which provides that it shall be lawful for the Superintendent out of any sums appropriated by the Council year by year for grants in aid, to pay to the Treasurer of the Board of Commissioners a sum which shall bear as nearly as may be the same equitable proportion to the amount of the yearly rate or assessment to be collected by the board as the grants in aid given to boards of wardens of road districts for the same year may bear to the amount of rates levied in those districts, provided that such payment from the grants in aid shall not exceed the sum of £8,000 sterling in any one year. Now by calculating 3^ years of this maximum rate of £3,000, we arrive at £9,750. But by the terms of this section Mr Plimmer has to show that giants in aid were " given to boards of wardens of road districts" for that term. If, on the contrary, they were not given : if there were no " sums appropriated by the Councilycar by year for grants in aid :" if, furthermore, boards were advised by circular from the Provincial Treasury that they could not be given, how ridiculous is Iho claim thus set vp — demanding for the city of Wellington what was denied and necessarily withheld from all the road districts of the province! It was, we admit, "lawful for tho Superintendent" to pay £9,750 for the 85- years if it hud been appropriated, but it was unfortunately impossible to do so, and the law does not require even a Superintendent to perform impossibilities.

Mr Plimmer, however, was sanguine enough to think that the City Council would endorse this very absurd proj:>osition, and gave notice to the following effect. Wo extract from the minutes of the City Council : — (No. 29 ) John Pliinrner to move on next sitting day, " That it is the opinion of the Council that the sum of £9750, duo from tho Provincial Government to the Municipality, Bhould bo allowed as part payment for the reclaimed land and wharf, and that no bargain should be concludod except this allowance is made." When he was called to move this motion (numbered 29) he begged leave to withdraw it. In his circular, most unaccountably, he denies this altogether, stating — " In the report given of the sitting in the Independent it says 1 withdrew the motion, toliich is not true." Now, on reading this, we immediately made application to the City Clerk for a copy of the minutes, and received the following : — TO TUB EDITOII 01? THE INDEPENDENT. Sic, — At your request, I enclose copy of minute of 7th July, regarding the motion of Councillor Plimmer. '•' With leave of tho Council, Councillor Plimmer withdrew tho notices of motion, Nos. 29 and 30, regarding purchase of recluimod land, &c." Copied from minutes of City Council by J. EiGa, Town Clerk. 28th July, 1871. Can anything be clearer than that Mr Plimmor's own statement "is not true '?' The Mayor at the time volunteered tho explanation, that even if Councillor Pliinmcr hud not withdrawn his motion he would have ruled that it could not be put, but this explanation was made after Councillor Plimmer himself had asked leavo to withdraw it. But, perhaps, of all tho misrepresentations in the circular, the greatest is (hat which Uuks under the following words : — " Remember, the only tender for the debentures specified if the money was lent it would be on the city rates, and, therefore, would hinder for years any other improvement being made." Now, the City Council actually passed a resolution to the effect, as Councillor Plimmer well knew, that this offer could not bo accepted unless this very clause specified were expunged, and in '' the bill in preparation" referred to by him, the following clause, as he knows full well, is purposely inserted to take away all doubts on this very point :—" Tho said land described in the schedule to this act, and the money which may bo received in respect of the same under tho provisions of this act, shall from henceforth, as between the Governor and his successors and the General Government of New Zealand on the one hand, and the Corporation aforesaid and their successors on the other hand, be the only security for the payment of the said sum of £31,000 and interest henceforth to become due for the same, and neither the Corporation aforesaid,

and their successors, the property or estates of tho borough, will be liable to make good any essential deficiency or loss in respect of the same." How are we to characterise Mr Pl i miner's conduct in thus so grossly misrepresenting facts ! In his concern for the public, he conjures before them dangers that he knows does not exist and sets forth claims that he knows cau neither be supported in law or equity. A more disgraceful attempt to hoodwink the citizens of Wellington it has never been our duty to expose, and we shall greatly mistake indeed, if, with even these few plain remarks, they fail to see its absurditea and misrepresentations.