The Press Thursday, April 30, 1925. The Mayoralty.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18369, 30 April 1925, Page 8

The Press Thursday, April 30, 1925. The Mayoralty.

While wo regret having to announce Mr Archer as the new Mayor, we do so without surprise, and with genuine appreciation of the skill with which he seized his opportunity. Labour cannot be blamed for taking advantage of a schism in the ranks of its opponents, and it can be said for its nominee that he fought a clean, hard and shrewd battle. It is to be hoped that he will forget, now that the struggle is over, that he entered the lists as the representative of a militant minority, or if he cannot forget it, that ho will regard himself while in office as the elected of the whole community. The faet that he is Mayor of Christchurch entitles hint to the respect and support of all the citizens of Christchurch, and we are sure that these will be freely given if he docs not refuse to deserve them. But it is necessary at the same time to point out that he would not be Mayor if those who wanted a non-Labour success had not deliberately thrown it away. "We have abstained so far from commenting on the position of Mr Beanland because we hoped that the electors would see the folly of giving votes to Mr Bcanland which could have no effect but to elect Mr Archer. Mr Bcanland is not free of blame in the matter, since no candidate is entitled to put his personal ambition beforo the public good. But the chief blame rests with the. executive of the Citizens' Association. Whatever the words of the promise were by which they induced Mr Beanland to stand down in Mr Flesher's favour in 1923, it is beyond question that Mr Beanland accepted them as a pledge of support it lie contested the Mayoralty in 1925. It is beyond reasonable doubt also that this interpretation of their promise was quite well known to the executive, and. that they were aware for two years of Mr Beanland's belief and ambition. In other words, Mr Beanland was a genuinely and justifiably aggrieved man when the executive told him a few weeks ago that they could not support him as a .Mayoral candidate, but were willing to recognise his self-sacrifice in other ways. There was no other kind of recognition in which Mr Beanland was interested—none, certainly, for which he would have agreed two years ago to postpone his candidature for the Mayoralty—and this must have been as well known to the executive at the time as it is now to everybody. The substantial support given to Mr Beanland yesterday —support given in defiance of the claims of prudence and of public interest—proved clearly enough that the publio view of the matter was that Mr Beanland had been very badly used, and that the executive of the Citizens ' Association had fallen very far short of that loyalty, openness and candour which the situation demanded. It should be added also that the Association will not recover its standing in the community unless its business is conducted with more care, and the public can feel that no Buch blunder as, that which has thrown away the 1925 eleetion will ever again be possible. , And on the broader question of the effect of division in a party, it can hardly be said too emphatically that Mr Archer's victory is a lesson to all moderates. We do not regard municipal politics as the same thing as national politics, and do not think that a municipal contest should be inspired by the same motives or conducted on the same plani But Labour insists on identifying the twe, and it is not therefore contradictory to point out that what happened yesterday will always happen, and especially will happen again in December, -unless people of moderate views will realise that they must stand togother.