THE MAYORAL CONTEST.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 155, 25 March 1908, Page 6

THE MAYORAL CONTEST.

It .is clear from tlie vigorous reply of Mr. Aitken to the. equally vigorous attack made upon his past Mayoral administration by Mr. Hislop that the contest for the office of Chief Magistrate is to be' a very keen struggle.

We are glad that this is so, for the apathy with which the average citizen looks upon municipal, politics cannot have a better remedy than a Mayoral campaign which wijl achieve its educative purposes by appealing to the universal fondness foi' a lively skirmish. Mr. Hislop's speech on Monday consisted largely of indictments of Mr. Aitken's administration as Mayor.' He laid particular stress upon the famous history of the loss of Miramar, and he declared that the opportunity to purchase the Miramar Estate for £75,000 was ,lost " in consequence of his (Mr. Aitken's) policy." What are we to think of this statement in the face of Mr.'Aitken's simple outline of the real facts of the case? As a matter of history Mr v Aitken did his best to secure the necessary Parliamentary authority for the purchase, but, as has so often happened to Wellington Bills, the proposal met with "the hostility of the. Government, and the Bill was blocked. Curiously enough, one of the gentlemen who took a prominent part in the easy , work of persuading the Premier to thwart the City's interests is a supporter of Mr. Hislop in the present contest. Equally uncandid was Mr. Hislop's insinuation that Mr. Aitken was responsible for the disorganising of the City finances, and his suggestion that the restoration of order was left by Mr. Aitken to his successor. As a matter of fact, the preliminary arrangements had been made before Mr. Hislop took office. These two unfoundod charges against Mr. Aitken's administration make up the sum total of the case upon which Mr. Hislop claims the preference of the public, unless we are to admit that it was Mr. Hislop's individual efforts that have resulted in a better return on sinking fund investments. . Since Mr. Hislop has raised

this point it might well- be worth investigating. The question of the security obtained is. always a material factor, especially in the case of the investment of sinking funds, and full details .of tiis investment of the City's

funds and the procedure followed in each ease should prove enlightening. Both candidates are in favour of acquiring the gasworks for City, but on this important question M'r. Aitken is in a much stronger position than his opponent. For while lie can quote bis attempt, when Mayor, to push through ail empowering Bill of an equitable character, Mi\ Hislop is in the position of aii advocate of a curiously extravagant attitude. He prejudices the r°sition of the City by setting down the. goodwill of the property af no less a sum than a tactical blunder at (he pi'esent stage of affairs. The ratepayers, will be well advised to reflect whether they' should commit the carrying-out of the enterprise to the hands of one who entertains such an astonishing opinion of what the City should pay for the mu-nicipalisat-ion of the gas supply. And, while we are offering advice, we may suggest to- Mr. Ilislop that he should exorcise greater discretion in selecting his charges against his opponent's administration. In the confusion and disorderly heat of a Parliamentary contest, a candidate may - be, led into the indiscretion of making allegations against his opponent which cannot be substantiated, and he can do this without much fear of fatally damaging his own chances. But there is no place in the present contest for such rough-and-tumble tactics. The constituency is'so certain to hear, and judge both attack and reply, that the Mayor can only do himself a disservice in getting himself bowled out.