THE MAYOR AND THE TRAMWAY EMPLOYEES.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 179, 24 April 1908, Page 6

THE MAYOR AND THE TRAMWAY EMPLOYEES.

Some days ago we had occasion to remark on the action of the Tramways Employees' TJnion in converting \ itself into a political, organisaion to further the interests of one. of the candidates in th? present Mayoral Election, contest. ' In pointing out the impropriety of municipal employees taking an active and organised part in the election of the chief'official-of the municipality —an official whose first duty is to the city as a whole, and who, if he is to do that duty faithfully and with '■ a single ; e t ye to the interests of' the whole community, should be untrammelled by obligations to any section of interested persons—Hwe were under the impression that the traijways employees, had blundered in ignorance. We still believe that the Union did not recognise the full effect of its action; that it failed to _ apprceiate the. evil it was introducing into our public life. But can the Mayor plead the same ignorance? Is it conceivable,that' Mr. Hislop could be' blind to the harmful effects of the precedent set by the action of the Tramways Employees' Union —and his own. We are impelled to ask these questions 'by reason of the allegation made that Mr. Hislop was not merely a passive influence in securing the support of the Tramways Union, but that he went to the length of addressing a private meeting of the Union, presumably in order to induce the Union to support his candidature. In another column we publish an exact copy of a document placed at our disposal '' summoning a meeting of the Tramways Employees' Union for Good Friday, _ announcing, amongst other things, that the Hon. T. W. 'Hislop would address the members of the Union in regard to the Mayoral Election. It will be noted that, according to the document in question, the first business of the Union was to receive the report of the Union Executive in regard to the Conference (with the Tramways Committee) respecting the Union's demands for increased pay, etc. Then was to follow Mr. Hislop's address —with the minds of the men full of their demands for increased wages and improved conditions of service! Is comment needed? Can the citizens picture a more deplorable condition of things in the conduct of our public affairs,? Here, is a paragraph from tho circular convening the meeting ; —"The election of a Mayor effects ,the vital interests of every man in the

tramway service." Can there be more than one interpretation'placed on this appeal to the' members of the Tramways Union? We think not. As to the authenticity of the document, a copy of which is reproduced we can only say that it boars the common seal of the Tramways Employees' Union, and that two members of the Union to whom our copy was submitted stated that a similar copy was posted in the tram-sheds .prior to the meeting., Moreover, if Mr. Hislop did not address the Tramways Union, why does the Secretary of the Union evade our direct question on the point in his letter published elsewhere? We can only come to the conclusion, in face of these circumstances, that in his eagerness to advance his candidature Mr. Hislop has stepped over the boundary line of prudence, and that in winning the support of the Tramways Employees' Union he lias placed himself at a serious disadvantage with the great body of citizens.