WANT OF VISION.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 17985, 31 January 1924, Page 11

WANT OF VISION.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PEESS." Sit, —Is it not about time that all City Councillors recognised that they are supposed to carry on the affairs of the city without respect to persons or parties? . Surely in a business concern such as the managing of a city's affairs those 'who represent their employers—the ratepayers who gave them their positions—have a right to expect faithful service in tho interest of the city and the people. . Why cannot those Councillors who call themselves Labour representatives when they go to the polls, recognise they are there for tho good of the city, and not for the particular class of citizen. At the last meeting of the Council, Councillor J. K. Archer is reported in your to-day's issue as regretting that "nobody from his side had been appointed to represent the Council" at a Conference. So long as the representatives were suit-; able for the conference what else matters. -Why should there be ''sides," as Councillor Archer says? "The party out for the good of the people" should be the whole Council. The managing of the city's affairs is a business, and a Board of Directors of any properly conducted concern would soon send it to the wall if they endeavoured to work on party lines or set up "sides." Tho common weal, which it certainly looks as if Mr Earn- ■ say Mac Donald, the Labour Prime Minister of England, is out for, should be the only consideration. It is very often useful to have reports of discussions to show what a narrow vision somo of our public men can boast of, but mothinks if the reports of the City Council were on the lines of those appearing in Auckland, those Christchurch City Councillors who consider they must have plenty of limelight so as to satisfy their constituencies that they at least do talk and ensure their future support, would probably find their occupation, of stirring up strife gone. It would be much more efficacious than a time limit. There is one consolation with respect to these pulling-down talkers, and that is, that in the majority of cases, it is the non-talker who is the man with constructive ability.—Yours, etc., NO COLOUK. Sydenham, January 29th..