THE ELECTIONS.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19376, 31 July 1928, Page 6

THE ELECTIONS.

MID-CANTERBURY SEAT.

THE PETITION TO MR NOSWORTHY.

Speaking to a representative of The Press yesterday, a Reform supporter residing in the Ellesmero County expressed resentment at the action of Mr H. Neave, of Leeston, in telegraphing the secretary of the public meeting hold at Ashburton last Thursday evening, requesting that the Hon. Mr Nosworthy should be informed that he was assured of "very 6olid support" from Ellesmere if he would consent to stand for the new Mid-Canterbury seat. He thought it should be made clear that Mr Neave was merely expressing his own opinion, as no steps had been taken to ascertain the views of Reform electors in the Ellesmere County. Some electors to whom copies of the petition had been forwarded had, he declared, sent them back to Ashburton without any signatures attached to them.

It is expected that the Ho::. Mr Nosworthy will give his answer to-day before leaving for Canada. Mr David Jones, M.P. for Ellesmere, who has been announced as the Reform candidate for Mid-Canterbury, will, in the event of Mr Nosworthy deciding to stand for that constituencyi be asked to contest the Hurunui seat, at present represented by Mr G. W. Forbes, the Leader of the National Party. DUNEDIN SOUTH. (PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) DUNEDIN July 30. At the request of Mr Sidey's committee. Mr W. B. Taverner, Mayor of Dunedin, has consented to contest the Dunedin South seat in the interests of the United Party. Mr Charles Todd, president of the New Zealand Alliance, who originally announced his candidature for Wakatipu, will now contest Dunedin South in the Reform interests. MR H. E. HOLLAND AND BULLER. (PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) PALMERSTON NORTH, July 30. Mr H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labour Party) addressed an exceedingly large audience to-night. In his opening remarks he made reference to recent rumours associating his name with Dunedin South constituency. He said that none of the papers publishing these rumours had approached him to ascertain whether they were true or otherwise. The allegation as to the promises made hy himself affecting the Buller electorate were wholly without foundation and were evidently based on the situation which arose in 1918 in connexion with* the Grey electorate. _ He had been selected without opposition for the fourth time as Labour candidate for the Buller electorate and had no intention of leaving that constituency. Furthermore, he never at any time received a request to allow his name to go into Dunedin South selection ballot. He was confident that Dunedin South would be among the seats won by Labour this year.

Cathedral and a College in the Square, but later the College idea was abandoned, not out of reverence for the Square, but because it did not contain a sufficient area of, ground. Originally it was intended to put the Cathedral on the western side of the Square, but afterwards it was changed to the. east. More than once a proposal was discussed to refrain from building the Cathedral in the Square at all, but to build it on the site of St. Michael's Church. These facts,, to which additions could be quite easily made, demonstrate beyond all dispilte that there has not been from the beginning a single and invariable plan for the utilisation of the 'Square. As a matter of fact, with changing times there have been changed proposals, and there will be in the future, but so far as I can see tho Square will never again be exclusively, or even mainly, used as gardens and promenades. In this century nobody would appreciate it in that form except old ladies of both sexes and courting couples. Hon. Mr Isitt and Exports.

"Over Mr Isitt's personal attack upon myself I will pass in but 1 would like to know why, if he is afc proud of Christchurch aa he claims to be, he is not sufficiently proud of it to live in it? Having watched his public career with considerable care, I am not at all surprised to find bim saying that he does not consider that the Square question is one to be decided by the whole of our citizens. I have no doubt whatever that he does not consider that any question could be so decided. As for his reference to experts, why does he ignore, or suppress, the fact that Mr Hurst Seager, New Zealand's greatest architectural expert and the only one amongst us, I believe, with an international reputation, gives tliib proposal his unqualified approval? Archbishop Julius' Attitude. "I very sincerely regret that Archbishop Julius feels aggrieved about this business. If, by clearing the Square of everything, including trams, roads, shelters, conveniences, the Post Office, and even the Cathedral, we could keep his Grace in Christchurch forever, I would, as an individual, be willing to do it, but as a public man I know that it cannot be done. 'The good old days' when there was not even a 'criss-cross fence' in it are gone forever. "A Pight to a Finish." "What shall 1 say concerning Dr. Tliacker's buffoonery? Before he went to Friday's meeting he picked our next Mayor. How he missed picking himself is a miracle. The appointment of a committee dominated by him, the Hon. Mr Isitt, and Mr J. A. Flesher, looks like a deliberate attempt to provoke a fight to a finish. If it is, I, for one, am ready."

The two questions which the Mayor asks Mr Gould in the foregoing statement were referred to Mr Gould last night, and he gave the following answer: —

"The replies to the Mayor's questions are as follows: To the first question I may say that I have never m my life uttered one word of approval of Mr (Seager's colonnade scheme. When —1 think in 1926—Mr Seager interviewed me, he asked me whether I w'as tied to any particular form of memorial. Thinking that he referred to the design that had been at one time accepted, possibly to either a column, an obelisk, or a cross, I answered that I was in no waj bound to any particular style of memorial. But I had no conception whatever of such a thing as he subsequently produced in the colonnade scheme. I was in England when the design appeared, and I heartily disapproved of it from the first.

"With regard to the other question, I stated that I thought any conveniences, if placed in the Square, should be underground. And to this I adhere. But I had in mind, and am still of opinion, that such conveniences should not be in the centre of the Square, but in one corner of it. I understand that there are no insurmountable difficulties in constructing adequate conveniences underground. The problems are morel" tliose of lighting, ventilation, and drainage, and I believe that all these can be easily satisfied."