THE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21456, 24 April 1935, Page 7

THE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

70 THE SJJITOB or THE PHE3S. Sir.—As one who has lived in both Auckland and Christchurch, having voted equally in both cities, my observations should be of some value to electors, more especially as the coming local elections are more like a general election than formerly. I should like first of all to refer to that unfortunate slip in you:- editorial of April 17. in which "The Press" refers to the reduction of the Christchurch rate as window dressing. Now that is an unkind compliment to make first to the Citizens' Association, which was equally pledged with Labour to reduce rates; and also to the ratepayers in general, who would be genuinely pleased at such a practical measure. Now, speaking generally, Auckland has been ruled by a nonLabour council during my residence here; while Christchurch has been ruled principally by Labour during that same period (a little more than nine years. Arriving in Auckland towards the end of 1925, I beheld a wilderness almost opposite the Town Hall; the outcome of Mayor Gunson's Civic Square fiasco. And there it remained for some six years; being sometimes used as a side-show ground; what time it resembled Barnum's back yard more than anything else. At the same time, to walk down Queen street upon the pavement was to run grave risk of being crippled, by reason of roughness. It was not for about three years that the street became gradually flagged. Mr first two elections I went to the Chamber of Commerce to vote. For some unaccountable reason this none too convenient hall was made the concentration point for about 20 different booths upstairs and down, for about as many local bodies, city and suburban. The confusion was terrible. This is what I saw: Voters were running around with marked ballot papers open to view, while some business men had found a table in a corner. And there they sat, shoulder to shoulder, checking each other's votes off; and bandying candidates' names about from one to another. I had a letter published in the "New Zealand Her-1 aid" about it; but no one worried; as indeed very few worry about council scandals in Auckland.

I remember Messrs W. 11. Murray and "Jerry" Lundon. when on the council, trying to get information about expenditure upon the zoo. They were whipped and bullied by the rest of the council, until they sank into tamed submission. Then there was the scandal of the treatment meted out to Miss Melville after she had gained the greatest Reform vote ever to be scored in Grey Lynn. Speaking generally. the voting in Auckland is a terribly poor score; especially upon ratepayers' polls. In the latter case it sinks to something like one-tenth of the roll, while for the council the highest vote is usually about one-third of the total roll. On one occasion there was the absurdity of four councillors having a higher vote than the successful mayoral candidate. ( In Auckland the unhappy ratepayer has a zoo rale and a library rate to bear, while many ratepayers have in addition two electric power boards to pay tribute to. And all this, in addition to the general rate! The real users of electricity in Auckland have no vote for the power board; and they have to stand by while the board erects the huge wedding cake of a building to be seen in Queen street. At night when lit up it reminds me of so much animated green cheese. The highest vote for this board last year was only about onefifth of the total roll. So much for ratepayers' interest! Now, speaking quite candidly, I would vote like a red hot shot for the Christchurch Labour council. And I think Christchurch is remarkably fortunate in having a man of Mr Sullivan's calibre as Mayor. My mind goes a long way back to the year 1914. when I heard of Mr Sullivan speak atf a Labour party meeting at the corner of Charles street, I think it was. In those days I considered myself a staunch Reformer. But directly I heard Mr Sullivan speak, I said to myself mentally—"l would vote for that man anywhere because he is sincere and capable." And in all the years since "Dan" Sullivan has shown those qualities in many a difficult corner.—'Youretc., R.M.T. Auckland, April 20, 1935. [Our correspondent should read the leading article he refers to again. We did not criticise the reduction of rates; we did criticise the method by which it was accomplished.—Ed. "The Press."! TO Till ECITOS OV TUB PK*«3. Sir,—As usual with Mr J. K. Archer when making an election address he introduced remarks which were in the worst of bad taste. Mr I Archer shduld remember that his Majesty the King bestowed the honour on Dr. Acland on account of his great i services to humanity, and the skill he attained was reached only after many years of hard study in one of I the most noble of professions. Probably thousands of soldiers and civilians ! are indebted to that skill for relief of their sufferings, and even for their lives. For more than 20 years he gave hi;; services free to the patients of the Christchurch Public Hospital, and many others are indebted to him for his free and generous treatment. He has apparently now reached that stage in life when he can give his services in another direction for the good of the city, and the coming election will show that his splendid record of the past will result in a further honour being conferred upon him by the electors. It would be more to the credit of Mr Archer if he refrained from personalities, and instead of trying to belittle a fellow-being because he has justly earned a distinction, to urge his fellow-beings to endeavour to raise themselves with honour to the top of whichever occupation they may follow.

His remarks about the saving to the ratepayers from loan conversions etc., are all bunkum, as has been shown by correspondents in your paper. If Mr Archer and his party are so eager to save the ratepayers' money, why did they make a gift to the Town Clerk of about £750, years before there could be any possible claim for on?y about two-thirds of that amount? It is actions of this kind by the Labour party which show how generous it can be with what are really trust funds of the ratepayers.—Yours, etc., ANTI POSSUM. April 20, 1935.