The Star. SATURDAY,NOV. 16,1878.

On ; the 28th ;Ootober /last when the name of Councillor Ick Was first pufclicly put forward as a candidate for the; Mayoralty, we Btated the ground upon which we objected to his, election this year, and supported our objection by adducing some of the facts upon which it was based. There could be no mistaking our language or what we intended to convey. Having sat down under our imputation and obewed the cud ' of reflection for seventeen days; Councillor Ick now comes forward with a reply. ■ , We welcome Councillor Ick's letter however, late as it comes. He appears to entertain the opinion that if he is successful in explaining the matters of the lamp and his compliments to the Sanitary Committee, that he will have dissipated successfully any grounds we or the publip ; may possess for. regarditig with suspicion the attitude he hag thought proper to assume towards Councillor Wilson. In this he is mistaken;- 'These were i only two of the grounds^. which we felt it to be necessary to lay before the public for the conclusion at which we had arrived. For the conclusion itself, it was built upon many little acts trivial in themselves perhaps, and scarcely proper to particularise, but pointing all one way to make lip a whole. We assure Councillor Ick that it was not the proceedings at one meeting, nor the observations of. one pair of eyes alone— for the eyes of the Press are manifold— nor was it his marked silence whe^i he should have spoken — although ■that! {Jircttihstance, in our view, tells heavily against him— but the tacit and general support accorded by him to Councillor Wilson upon all occasions, which irresistibly fixed the conclusion that Councillor Ice has not taken the i independent stand he would have done had he not been a candidate for the Mayoralty, and anxious to conciliate one who had just demonstrated that he had a party behind out of doors ready to support him in any course he I might indicate.

We have, one or two observations to : make upon the explanations offered by Councillor Ick, Mr John Anderson (whose name we regret should have* been brought into this business) pre-/ sented the city during the period of his office as Mayor with the handsome fountain now in the square. It is scarcely necessary to say that he did not insult the ratepayers by telling them what it cost him out of pocket. The fountain was, however, wholly his gift. It cost the oitizenß nothing. When it was found necessary to remove the fountain Mr Anderson was very properly consulted as to its future site. The position of the fountain might be anywhere in the city where people congregated, and this it was which dictated the reference to the giver. Now, Councillor Wilson signalised his year of office by giving a subscription towards the erection of a lamp — a very useful gift, from the merit of whioh we would be sorry to detract. In this structure there was £42 15s of the city funds. Councillor Wilson, with characteristic modesty and good taste, now asserts that this lamp cost him £25. We may interpolate here our strong opinion that, after this reminder, were it correct, the amount should be paid baok to him at once. But it is not correct. On the contrary, it is absolutely untrue. From inquiries we have made we find that the total cost of the lamp opposite Oobb'b waß £02, of which Bum £20 5s was contributed by subscriptions from various parties. The statement, therefore, of Councillor Wilson that it cost him £25 is an unblushing untruth. Supposing, however, that it had been true, with the wretched, narrow-minded jealousy to be expected, he complains that he was not consulted about the removal of the lamp, as Mr Anderson had been about the fountain. The answer is, not that the lamp was principally erected at the cost, and was the property of the ratepayers — which it might well be— but that there was no question of taate or opinion involved in its removal. The permission of Mr Anderson to move the fountain was never asked— for that would have been a surrender of the rights of the citizens — he was only " consulted*" as to its new position. The matter of the lamp was widely different. It was moved back out of the way of traffic, but to this hour its site remains the same. There was no occasion therefore for any consultation, and be was not consulted.

Councillor Ick now tells us that "some two or three weeks before there was any talk of Mr Wilson coming forward, that gentleman charged me in a public room, and before company, that the Council had acted with great discourtesy towards him" ia the matter. It is a great pity that Councillor lok did not put this very particular, in all matters of courtesy, "gentleman" right on the subject, as he might easily have done, instead of saying it was an " overflight," and " promising on the first opportunity to take the blame on myself." Councillor Ick is neither silly nor childish, and the true position of the case, as we ! have above stated it, muet have immediately occurred to him. We have consulted those who were of the company upon the occasion to which Councillor Ick refers, and they bear out his statement as to. what then took place; they pub the time of the occurrence, however, further back. One informant is satisfied that it must have been at least three or four weeks before the time Councillor Wilson was first mentioned as a candidate for the Council. Taking, the period, however, to be as Councillor Ick, admits it, three weeks, then m Wilson's name woe mentioned in oar

columns cwdidate^on>the sth of September, the complaint ofc discourtesy ||{fuld have been made^kbout the 15th of jAugust. Now, itis a-rather singular fact thai at the \ftdj6jarned Council meeting held on tho ; 20th of that ;monfch,\vrhen the : matter must have been fresh t in Go^n6illor Ick's mind, he made no mentidS of William Wilson's complaint. Still more singular iei it that at the Council meeting held on the 27th August, at whioECounoiUdrldKrfri ■the absence of the Mayor, presided^ he forgot all about this important prbmise, which he boasts now- o£ having^' kept."There is thus something .than a probabjiity; :presenteditha# if J^L%iam Wilson had not been elected on the 12th September there would have bejen nothing more heard of this ridiculously absurd complaint; of j discourtesy. To suppose otherwise would be to reflect on Councillor Ick's common sense.- Wd haVe not space to follow Councillor 'Ick? further • to-day. With j^ef erenc^ to r the Sanitary , Committee business,, we may say that we should boi willing; tor accept 1 Counbillor Ick's statement, whiclf is evidently sincere enougb, at once,Hmfortunateiy, however, no, one can re- . member, that he ever felt his " duty " impel him to adopt a similar course pbefore.-'- - : - ■■-■■ -' ■ ' v;r •■-'*'; u:^ ; v .' r ■;.;