THE ETHICS OF PUBLIC LIFE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 800, 25 April 1910, Page 6

THE ETHICS OF PUBLIC LIFE.

■ *'■ — . An interesting point in political ethics is raised by' the controversy between the candidates foi; the City -Mayoralty' on the subject of the negotiations between the Harbour Board and -the Miramar Borough Council regarding the terms under which the Evans Bay reclamation works should be carried out. Me. Crawford claimed that in connection with those, negotiations he, as Mayor of Miramar, had forced the' Harbour Board, of which Mr. Wilford. was chairman, to abandon a betterment clause in a Bill before Parliament and to accept the conditions stipulated ■ for by his. borough. To use his own words "the tail had wagged the dog." Mr. Wilford's retort to his opponent was that he had not cared "that much" for the, clause, snapping his fingers. That he had simply used it to, further other ends which the Board had in 'view, and which he hinted at with .some show of mystery. Bearing in-mind what MR. Wilford says to-day, it is interesting to note what Mr. Wilford said on.' the same subject in 1908. Speaking in the House of Representatives on July 9 (sek Hansard Volume 143, pages 271-275)' Mr., Wilford, in moving the second reading of the Wellington Harbour Board Beclamation and Empowering Bill said, amongst other things:

I admit that this principle of betterment as provided in this Bill is a drastic one, anJ I am not prepared to say that the Wellington Harbour Board is not prepared to meet members as to a modification of the tenns of the betterment; but so fan as the renouncement of the principle of betterment is concerned I cannot give way, and I will ask honourable members of this House to uphold the principle. Again: As far as the betterment principle la concerned, let me say to those who are opposing- the betterment principle that if that provision is left out of the Bill then the Evans Bay reclamation has to go. ,/ Again: ■ What. X desire to say is -this: If this House says, "We will not have such betterment," then X will buw to.the will of tho House!; but "with' tliß deletion of the prinoiple' the /.-Evans. Bay reclamation scheme must also "go, with its expenditure 1 of .£148,000, and out , must 'go the "expenditure of .620,000 for the wharf, because we are advised by our engineers, whose opinions we must take in this matter, that it is , . absolutely, essential that the betterment principle must be introduced to r meet the huge expenditure entailed upon this public body.

These extracts from Me. Wilford's speech as reported in Hansard necossarily must have influenced members, for Mr. Wilford was speaking not merely as a member: of Parliament but-as Chairman of the Harbour Board. He was speaking presumably with a full sense of responsibility and he could have left no, doubt in the minds of members' the clause relating to betterment could not be sacrificed unless the whole Bcheme of the. Evans Bay reclamation went overboard.' Today Mr. Wilford . informs us that this pleading for the betterment clause ' was" merely make-believe. That the ' Harbour Board did not care a' snap of the fingers for the clause? . '

Mr. Wilford continued 'to- say (so runs tlie report of Mr. Wilford's speech of last Thursday) .that he declined the advice of members to drop the betterment clause when the protests began to come in. He know hunun nature, and ho said, "1 will keep Crawford, going ,on it for. three, months, and it will, keep them. quiet 'about i the. other, clause, which was important to ■ the city and not to Miramar. We had deputations to -the Harbour Board, and politely bowed them out, saying we did not intend to drop the clause &t present. / We did not care that much for the clause," said-Mr.'Wilford, snapping his fingers,, He was prepared to produce tho resolution passed, and signed statements by members of tho-Board to back him up.

It will be seen that Me. Wilford, in attempting to score ah effective retort to his opponent's- comments on this transaction has placed himself in an awkward situation- How can he reconcile his statement to, Parliament with his declaration' today that the fiarbour Board did not care a snap ,of the fingers for the betterment clause 1. Was he, 1 in 1908, simply fooling Parliament as well as the Miramar Borough Council, or has his memory played him false?*