THE VIEWS OF COUNCILLOR KIRK.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2675, 3 December 1909, Page 4

THE VIEWS OF COUNCILLOR KIRK.

At AYcdnesday's meeting of the Borough Council an exceedingly interesting discussion took place on the loan •proposals, it’s chief value consisting in the fact that the majority broke the lengthy silence which they have preserved.in the past and made an endeavor to justify the attitude they have adopted. Of those who spoke on this side easily the best speech was made by Councillor Kirk, and for this reason we select his arguments as a sample of tlie best •that can be said for an exceedingly bad case. One of Councillor Kirk’s main contentions in favor of submitting the loan proposals as one was that “the ratepayers can't have been expected to go into these matters as fully as we have done.” “Whatever their opinions may be, it is not to be expected that they have studied the subject as we have done.” “Are we not here to conserve the expense to the ratepayers?” These are excellent reasons to justify Cr. Kirk in assisting to place the various schemes before the ratepayers, but they do not show a tittle of evidence as to why the ratepayers should not he-given an opportunity to vote for or against each. ,one. Councillor Kirk is by no means the first member of a local body who has come to the conclusion that giving effect to his ■individual views will bring a groat wave of prosperity to the community. But alas for such enthusiasm, a cold blooded legislature has decreed that all a Council can do in such matters is to go through the hard work associated with the preliminaries. Its duty is to conceive ideas, bring them into prac- . tical shape and then submit the resultant schemes to the ratepayers. These latter gentry may, as Cr. Kirk says, have failed to “study the subject as we have done.” They may be too blind to know a good thing when it' is put before them, too stupid to understand the intricacies of municipal finance, too indolent to read the newspapers yet from not one of these unfortunate individuals can. Cr. Kiric take tlie right to vote upon the loan proposals. It is one of the drawbacks of democracy that tlie vote of the foolish, the ignorant, or tlie bigoted man counts for as much as does that of the wisest and most enlightened. It is more than probable that were ample despotic power, given to a few gentlemen like Cr. Kirk to “conserve the interests, of the Borough witlj. the least expense to the ratepay'ers” they would achieve infinitely better results than are obtained under the present , system. The best” governed city in the United 'States is the capital city of -Washington, whoso inhabitants have no vote on any municipal matters but are governed by three autocratic commissioners who are .appointed by Congress and arc answerable only 'to President Taft. That, however, is not the issue. Our people have chosen to have their affairs managed under democratic conditions, and under these peitlier Cr. Kirk nor. anyone else has the right to usurp the functions of one solitary, ratepayer. A man may life so narrow-nunded and mean-spirited that he will .not support; any proposal but' that of the AYaimata Bridge- '""' V Be calculates, will ' his

give a vote in , that direction ;cannot be alienated. The only object in having a poll is to give every ratepayer the opportunity of expressing an effective opinion in regard to the .proposed expenditure. By/pooling so many diverse issues the Council will effectually prevent that opinion from being obtained. To quote Councillor Kirk again: “If the proposals are carried separately we shall have the roads ripped up for drainage, later on ripped up for tramways, and there will be no end to the tearing up of the roads.” And later: ”If you vote for the issues separately you will have to pay more for your money and you will have beastly bad .roads.” The ■ Mayor in all his speeches has assumed, that if the issues are presented separately, some of them are certain to be lost and Cr. Kirk here assumes that the road pro-' posals would be. This is precisely where lie gives his case away. He fears the result of putting before the ratepayers the crude and ill-digested road scheme, and apparently recognises that the only chance of seeing it car- f vied is to have it sandwiched in amongst other works which the ratepayers are satisfied with. The nearest approach to justification for such ail attitude is to say that “the end justifies the means,” hut we should scarcely expect from Councillor Kirk the public adoption of such a principle. Of course this Councillor said many other things, hut these in the main traversed arguments we have already dealt with, such as the necessity of borrowing all the money required in •a lump sum in order to obtain the lowest rate of interest. Finally, he touched a personal note by referring ,to his own individual interests in the borough. These he declared to be of a substantial nature, and evidently considered lie had said the last word oil the subject when he declared that “his personal vote was going for all the loans, for he had faith in the district, .aiid was prepared to bear his share of any burden imposed.” 'This is precisely the spirit that we like to see in our public men. Councillor.' Kirk has not only faith in the district, but he •has also faith in every one of the loan •proposals. He is, therefore, prepared 'to go to the ballot-box and vote for the lot with a clear conscience. But there are other ratepayers; some with interests as large as those of Councillor Kirk, some with infiinitely less. And they, too, have faith in the district, but they have not faith in all of the loan proposals, some of which in their opinion may retard rather than advance the district. These men should have an equal right with Councillor Kirk to endeavor to give effect to the r wishes, but that gentleman from his place in the Council has helped to disfranchise those who differ from him. Yet he would probably he offended wore we. to suggest that he is not a geed democrat.