MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 179, 17 April 1923, Page 8

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

PLETHORA OF CANDIDATES THREE CONTEST MAYORALTY TWENTYFIVE FOR CITY. COUNCIL TWENTY-SEVEN FOR HOSPITAL BOARD

. Nominations for the various municipal elections closed ’ yesterday with Mr. James Ames, returning officer. There -‘•-"will be a triangular contest for the Mayoralty, and there are thirty-five nominations for the City Council and twentyseven for the Hospital Board.

For the Mayoralty there are three candidates —Messrs. P. Fraser, L. McKenzie, and R. A. Wright. Two years ago there were record nominations for both City Council and . .Hospital Board. This time there are thirty-five candidates for the City Council, as against forty-two two years ago, while the nominations for the Hospital Board show an increase of three —twenty-seven as against twentyfour. Of the candidates for the Hospital Board, seven are women (five of whom have been included in the Labour ticket). • In the case of the Harbour Board there is-<.a straight-out fight; between ■ two tickets. The d strict electors are to return four members, and of the candidates four are put forward by the Civic League and four by the Labour Party. . are the nominations:— THE MAYORALTY

PETER FRASER, nominated by A. Parlano and Solomon Gordon. LEONARD STUART McKENZIE, nominated by H. Desborough, Hamilton Gilmer, M.D., A. Simp- . son, and C. A. Innes. ROBERT ALEXANDER WRIGHT, nominated by C. J. B. Norwood, C. C. Crump, J. J. Clark, Thos. McDowell, S. M. Stone, AV. T. Hildreth, sen., F. J. Evans, Ethel AV. Vickery, Albert H. Easton, C. Lucy Tonks, AV. H. Green, F. North.

CITY COUNCIL (Fifteen Members to bo Returned.) JOHN ASTON, nominated by C. J.VB. Norwood and J. M. Dale. GEORGE H. BAYLIS, nominated by N. I. Gooder, F. AV. Rowe, and C. C. Aitken. HENRY D. BENNETT, nominated by C. M. Luke and U. F. McCabe. WILLIAM H. BENNETT,- nominated by A. C. Blake J. M. Dawson, and J. B. Brinsden. HENRY BODLEY. nominated by AV. Lowry and William Clark. THOMAS BRINDLE, nominated by C. Wiedman and J. Forsyth. WALTER BROWNLEY, nominated by J. Read and W. Waterworth. BENJAMIN G. H. BURN, nominated by J. C. Tonks and C. I. Dasent. JOHN BURNS, nominated by AV. F. Richards and R. Randell. JOHN CASTLE, nominated by J. AV. Salmon and 11. Hobbs. CHARLES H. CHAPMAN, nominated by Solomon Gorder and R. H. Stickney. ALEXANDER CROSKERY, nominated by A. McLeod and L. Raven. COLIN CRUMP, nominated by C. M. Luke, C J. B. Berger Lynneberg, and J. M. Wallace. ‘JAMES A. DOHERTY, nominated by Neil Gow and G. E. Godber. HAROLD DYSON, nominated by John Reed and R. McKeon. THOMAS FORSYTH, nominated by B. G. H. Burn and L. McKenzie. WILLIAM J. GAUDIN, nominated by R. G. C. Hitch, AV. J. Westwood, and J. 0. Shetland. JOHN GLOVER, nominated by E. L Lovell and W. Homer. LEWIS GLOVER, nominated by A. Parlane and J. 0. Johnson. LAURENCE HENNESSEY, nominated by R. E. Sruton and S. A. Griffiths. ANDREW R. HORNBLOW, nominated by AV. A. Jameson and A. Staples. HERBERT A. HUGGINS, nominated by E. A. Batt, J. L. Arcus, and L. T. Watkins. MARTIN LUCKIE. nominated by C. P. Skerrett, and C. G. Wilson. FRANK MEADOWCROFT, nominated by J. T. Martin, and AV. AVatson. ROBERT McKEEN, nominated by G. AV. W’hippv. and J. Kennedy. JAMES McKENZIE, nominated by J. Roberts, and Al. J. O’Mallev. ANNIE Me VICAR, nominated by Belle Cable, Frances Fitch, and R. F. Mackay. GEORGE MITCHELL, nominated hy — J. Hutcheson, C. D. Martin, D. J-;, J. McGowan, J. H. Whittaker, and M. Myers. J,Alexander l. monteith, nominated by T. H. Tankard, and F. Twort. ■ALEXANDER WAITER PARTON, %• nominated by E. J. Colley, and F. H. Swan. CLARENCE H. SNOW, nominated by J. Glover, and G. L. T. Savage. WILLIAM J. THOMPSON, nominated by T. S. Weston, and W. Hopkirk. JOSEPH AV. TRIM, nominated by A. Coolev, and J. O. Johnson. MICHAEL WELSH, nominated bv G. Burssey, and M. J. O’Mallev. WILLIAM T. YOUNG, nominated by Al. J. Mack, and J. H. Adams. HOSPITAL BOARD (Fourten members to be elected.) 'WILL APPLETON, nominated by Hope B. Gibbons, and Alex A. Gellatly. JAMES M. -BERTRAM, nominated by A. C. Blake, and R. F. Mar- ,. '.-■. ley. JOSEPH W. BUTTER, nominated by rp jj Collman, and L. T. Watkins. < DUNCAN CAMPBELL, nominated by .._ F. J. Courtney, and A. A. George. FLORA B. CARVER, nominated by A. L. Monteith, and J. Read. EDITH M. CARMICHAEL, nominated by E. AV. Ford, and A. AL f White. FREDERICK CASTLE, nominated f ■ by E. AV. Bruce, and L. J. Taylor. J CHARLES H. CHAPMAN, nominated by S. Gordon, and R. H. Stickney. WAITER COLE, nominated by V 7. J. Gaudin, T. Forsyth, and A. A. GeoWi.

MARY J. COSTELLO, nominated by J. McKenzie and A. Black. JAMES K. ELLIOTT, nominated by R. Hannah and J. AV. Jack. JANET FRASER, nominated by G. A\ 7 ard and T. Brindle. JOHN GLOVER, nominated by E. Kennedy and G. T. Savage. SOLOMON GORDON, nominated by C. H. Chapman, J. H, Adams, and S. E. C. Snow. ANNIE M. E. HARDING, nominated by Edna Scott, Charlotte W r atts. and William Wolland. CHARLES HOBBS, nominated by A. L. Monteith and T. H. Tankard. ANDREW R. HORNBLOW, nominated by J. Dixon, and AV. Hall. CHAIkLES M. LUKE, nominated by W. F. Ponder, A. P. Smith, and H. AV. Kerslev. JAMES McKENZIE, nominated bv J. Roberts and M. J. O’Malley. ANNIE McVICAR. nominated by W. Cable, Neil McLean, and A. M. Garrard. GEORGE PETHERICK, nominated by M. L. Cass and A. Coutts. GEORGE SHIRTCLIFFE, nominated by C. M. Luke and J. B. Barcourt. SARAH E. 0. SNOW, nominated by D. Reiding and E. A. Hartley. FRANK TWORT. nominated by P. Callaghan and T. H. Tankard. HERMAN VAN STAVEREN, nominated by W. H. S. Moorhouse and D. B. Howden. EDWARD VINE, nominated by A. A. George and H. AV. Preston. WILLIAM T. YOUNG, nominated by M. J. Mack and J. H. Adams. THE HARBOUR BOARD

(Four Members to be Elected.) HENRY D, BENNETT, nominated by C. M. Luke, U. F. McCabe. CHARLES H. CHAPMAN, nominated by Solomon Gordon and R. H. S. Stickney. LEWIS GLOVER, nominated bv Andrew Parlane, and J. 0. Johnson. CHARLES HOBBS, nominated by E. L. Lovell and G. L. T. Savage. GEORGE MITCHELL, nominated by John Hutcheson, D. J. McGowan. G. H. Whittaker, and Michael

Myers. CHARLES J. B. NORAVOOD, nominated by R. A. AVright and H. F. Allen. COLLIN F. POST, nominated by, A. R. Hislop and F. AV. Rowe. WILLIAM T. YOUNG, nominated by M. J. Mack and J. H. Adams.

THE MAYOR’S CHALLENGE MR. McKENZIE’S REPLY AND AN EXPLANATION

The Mayor, Mr. R. A. AVright, received the following memorandum from Mr. L. McKenzie yesterday :— “I notice ydur challenge in this morning’s paxier. I also remember that at the meeting held in the Mayor’s room, at which the various committees were present, you said you could not remember being asked to come to an agreement with Mr. Hislop and myself at the last election. I don’t comment on that, but send you a copy of a lettex 1 received by me at that date from tho New Zealand AV«I- - League.” The letter referred to was forwarded to Mr. McKenzie by the secretary of the AVelfare League (Mr. A. >’ Harper) in April, 1921. and states, inter alia: “Before sending the letter we proposed I telephoned Mr. AVright, and found that he is too far committed to agree to the submission to a committee. AA 7 e have, therefore, decided that it would be useless to make the proposal.” Commenting on Mr. McKenzie’.* memorandum. Mr. AVright said that from Mr. Hislop’s letter it was quite evident that he had telephoned him in reference to the submission of some proposal. “AVhat this has to do with tho original statement by (Mr. McKenzie,” he said, “I am at a loss to understand. Mr. Harper’s letter does not assist Mr. McKenzie in the difficulty in which he finds himself placed. My statement was that neither I nor my committee had ever made any promise to Mr. McKenzie that if lio stood down two years ago for mo I would not be n candidate on the present occasion. Mr. McKenzie docs not attempt to prove his allegation. »<or is he willing to withdraw the statement. I have also said that I don't know why Mr. McKenzie retired two years ago. Neither do I know now Whatever happened between him and Mr. Hislop was never disclosed to me. All I knew was that Mr. McKenzie retired. My challenge, therefore, >• still open.”

MR. McKENZIE IN REPLY In a statement to the Press on the matter. Mr. McKenzie referred to tho vote-splitting negotiations that took place at the last campaign. He said he was then approached by tlie Townplanning and Progressive League in order to see if it was possible to reduce the number of candidates. His committee appointed three gentlemen to confer with the committees appointed by the other candidates, and after several meetings his sub-com-mittee reported that it had been agreed to take a preferential ballot, jllis committee approved the action, but unfortunately the conference fell through. “It was reported to me,” said Mr. McKenzie, “that an agreement had been arrived at on the proposal of one of the other committees, that in protection of their candidates

tlie successful nominee at the election should retire for one or other of the successful men. This was agreea upon. I was asked by the secretary of the Welfare League to submit my name to a further conference. Aly private reply to him was as follows: ‘ln furtherance of Our conversation and on the advice of my trustee, the Hon. J. G. W. Aitken, and after consultation with Mr. T. W. Hislop, 1 have consulted my chairman, the Rev. C. AV. Askew, and have decided to go before a committee on similar terms to the other conference. Sir. Aitken promises to assist mo on a future occasion. Will you kindly approach the other candidates, and T will call upon you later on the ’phone in order to select a committee of elimination?” Mr. McKenzie then read the confidential letter of which hs haft, sent a copy to the Mayor, and continued: “Air. Wright in his challenge says that he was not consulted, nor did he know any of the reasons why I retired on the last occasion. I therefore leave it to the public to judge for themselves by the two letters referred to.”

A CORRECTION MR. McKENZIE MISTAKEN

With reference to Mr. L. McKenzie’s statement that in 1921 Mr. Wright’s committee had approached Mr. J. G. AV. Aitken with a view to inducing him (Mr. McKenzie) to stand down from the Mayoral contest, Mr. A. Macintosh, in conversation with a Dominion reporter yesterday, stated that Mr. McKenzie was in error as to who prompted Mr. Aitken to use his influence in the matter. What actually happened -was that Mr. Macintosh, who, with members of the Welfare League, had been interesting himself with the object of securing a straightout contest with the Labour nominee, decided to approach Mr. Aitken on the subject. Air. Aitken was at that time unwell, and knowing that Mr. Hopkirk was in the habit of calling to see him, Mr. Macintosh suggested to him that, be should ask Mr. Aitken to use his influence with Mr. McKenzie to induce him to stand down. Mr. Hopkirk saw Mr. Aitken, and Mr. Aitken acted as requested “Mr. Wright and tins committee had nothing to do with the matter,” Mr. Macintosh added. “The suggestion was made by me to Mr. Hopkirk, and no doubt Mr. Hopkirk will remember the occasion.”

MR. McKENZIE AT ISLAND BAY NO WISH TO CONTINUE CONTROVERSY Mr. L. McKenzie, a candidate for the Mayoralty, addressed a well-at-tended meeting at St. Hilda’s Schoolroom, Island Bay, last night, Mr. J. O. Shorland presiding. The candidate gave an account of his stewardship as chairman of the Outlying . Districts Committee of the council, and in doincr so traced the history of the purchase of a large part of the foreshore at Island Bay, of which he had been a strong advocate. He also recalled his advocacy of the rest park site on the Parade, which later on would become such an asset to the bay. He stressed the need for economy and efficiency in the creation oF proper stores, yards, the erection of rubbish bins in various parts, of the city, and the expediency of utilising motor traction for corporation work in. preference to horses and drays. Speedier tramway services were urgently needed to' the outlying districts. He also had a lively appreciation of the need for better roads.

Referring to the alleged agreement of two years ago in respect to the Mayoralty, Mr. McKenzie read an extract from the minutes of one of h<« sub-committee meetings, which Tncrtideu the following:—“That the chosen caritlidate (at the ballot) bo aeked to stand down at the next election in favour of one of the unsclccted candidates.” That, he said, was agreed to by tho sub-comm : ttees of the candidates (Labour excepted) in March, 1921. Mr.- McKenzie also said that before leaving home that evening he had received a telephone message from Mr. Alexander Macintosh stating that the statement he (Mr. McKenzie) had made at Khandallah, to the effect that the late Hon. J. G. AV. Aitken was apprdacTfod by Mr. AVright’s committee to wa’t upon Mr. McKenzie prior to the 1921 election, -was not correct. It was not Mr. Aitken, but another person. He accepted Mr. Macintosh’s statement as tho correct one. Mr. AA 7 rigbt’s committee had denied that i£ had approached anyone to wait upon him. In reply to that, Mr. McKenzie said that (in the presence of Mr. G. Mitchell) the Rev. James Paterson and Mr. John Kirkcaldie had waited upon him, the latter stating that he had been asked to do so by a member of Mr. AVright’s committee, and he had accepted the assurance of tho two gentlemen named that such was the case.

Finally, Mr. McKenzie stated that he did not wish to continue the controversy anv further with Mr. AA 7 right, but sincerely hoped that he would be left alone to continue Iks campaign. At Tho conclusion of the meeting tho candidate received a unanimous vote of thanks.

HOW THEY ATTEND TO BUSINESS

MAYORAL CANDIDATES’ RECORDS To The Editor. Sir, —As all three candidates for the Mayoralty are members of the City Council, it is a fair thing to inquire as to how they have attended to the business of the city. From an official return of the attendances at council and committee meetings, we gather the following facts which will bo of general interest to the electors

Of council meetings, Messrs. AA 7 right, McKenzie, and Fraser wore each called to 60 meetings from May 1, 1921, to April 1, 1923. My. AVright attended 60; Mr. McKenzie, 59; Mr. Fraser, 50. Mr. AA 7 right and Mr. Fraser were each on three committees, and their attendance was as follows: —Mr. Wright: Finance Committee, called to 51, attended 51; Tramways Committee, called to 71, attended 71; AVorks Committee, called to 21, attended 21. Mr. Fraser: Tramways Committee, called to 71, attended 45; Legislation Committee, called to 22, attended 13; Milk Committee, called to 49, attended 23.

Air. McKenzie was on four committees, and attended thus: Finance, called to 51, attended 45; Milk, called to 49, attended 38; Outlying Districts, called to 34, attended 34; Reserves, called to 49, attended 40. The Mayor attended all meetings lie was called to. Mr. McKenzie was next in attendance, and Mr. Fraser comes last.

Jt will be seen from this record, and it is the official record, not ours, that tho contrast b/altween Mr. AVright’s attendance and Mr. Fraser’s is very striking. Mr. AVright was called to 203 meetings altogether and attended all of them. Mr. Fraser was called to 202 and attended 136—that is, 96 he did not attend. There may be some

explanation from Air. Fraser’s standpoint, but as yet we do not know what it is. In view of the recent utterances of Air. Fraser, which would make it appear that ho has, if anything, more interest in the success of the tramway service than the non-party representatives on the council, we would like some explanation of why ho comes out lowest in the list of attendance, at Tramway Committee meetings. There arc seven members on that committee, and we find their attendances were: Called to 71 meetings: The Alayor attended 71, Councillor Forsyth 67, H. I>. Bennett G 6, AV. J. Thompson 61, AV. J. Gaudin 56, C. B. Norwood 51, P. Fraser 45.

Whatever may be thought of the Mayor’s candidature for a second term of office, he is entitled to full credit for the way he has attended to the business of the city, as disclosed in the official record, —We are, etc., CIVIC LEAGUE EXECUTIVE.

THE CITIZENS’ TICKET

SPEECHES AT HATAITAI

Several municipal candidates whoso names appear on tho Citizens’ Ticket addressed a meeting of electors in the AVaitoa Road Churchroom. Hataitai, last night. Air. A. E. Batt presided. Airs. A. McVicar said that she did not aim at being an authority on big things like hydro-electric schemes and tramways. Her chief concern was for such things as the welfare cf women and children and the improvement of public health. She was desirous of serving for a further term on the Hospital and Charitable Aid Board, as well as on the Citv Council. On the council, she believed, there was room for a woman. She was surprised that there were not other women candidates in the field. Air. C. C. Crump declared that lie was not an enemy of Labour. He was in sympathy with sane Labour all the time. He cared nothing if a man earned £5O a week, so long as the amount was fairly earned. The people from whom he differed were those who desired something for nothing. He held the opinion that whatever was municipalised must be required to pay its way. He stood for good, sound, Iwnestaprogress. If elected he would strive to do his duty. He urged the electors to give very serious consideration to the Citizens’ Tickets for all the local bodies. ■

Air. J. Burns quoted his attendances at council meetings as an indication of his readiness to devote his time to the service of the city. H» emphasised the value of business experience in members of the council, and mentioned savings that ho had assisted in effecting for the city. Ho hoped that the basis of lighting charges would soon be revised so that the small consumcr would pay a little less and the large consumer a little more. Air. Burns defended the council’s endeavours to relievo the housing shortage by building. He did not regard the expenditure on building as having been unnecessarily heavy. To-day, ho believed, all the purchasers of the 22 houses built by the council could sell at a profit were they allowed to put the property in the market so boon Thera was an apparent loss of £4677 on the building scheme, since £4677 had been advanced to it from the district fund. But tho assets of th» scheme offset that loss, and reduced it almost to nothing. It was estimated that tho land at present' available was worth £2OOO. By a sale in March of stock remaining on hand, £5OO had been realised, and it was estimated that the final figure would bo £2OOO. Mr. Burns submitted that the “Blue Ticket” had an advantage over tho rival ticket in respect of cxiierience and business ability. Air. J. iy. Butler, a candidate for the Hospital Board, believed that he could be of special use on tho Social AVelfare Committee, which had to deal with recipients of charitable aid. He did not think it would be of advantage to the city if one section captured all the seats on the board. There was urgent need of more accommodation at the Hospital, and a programme of extension had been mapped nut- He thought, however, that expenditure upon the scheme should bq deferred till Dr. Wilson returned, within a few months, with the latest ideas from America.

NOMINATIONS IN OTHER TOWNS Press Association telegrams report nomination in other towns as follow: — AUCKLAND. Mr. J. H. Gunson was re-elected Alayor unopposed. Thirty-nine candidates have been nominated for the twenty-one seats on the City Council. Of these, sixteen are sitting members. Labour has a ticket of twelve. The Alayor of Newmarket (Air. Donaldsor) lias been re-elected unopposed. There are contests for the Mayoralties of Alount Eden, Mount Albert, aud Avondale. GISBORNE. Mr. George AVildish, who has been Afayor for the past four years, and Councillor Fred. R. Ball have been nominated for the Mayoralty. DUNEDIN. There are three candidates for the City MayoraltyCouncillors Tapley, Larnach, and Hayward. There was no Labour nominee. Twenty-five have been nominated for tho twelve councillors’ seats; of these six are Labour candidates. One woman, Mrs. Leech, stands as an independent. PALMERSTON NORTH. Air. F. J. Nathan and Air. S. R. Lancaster have been nominated for the Alayoralty. For tho nine seats on the council, sixteen candidates were nominated. HAMILTON. Air. J. R. Fow, the sitting Alayor, was the only nomination for the Alayoralty. There are twenty-eight nominations for tho council. DANNEVIRKE. Keen interest is being taken in the municipal elections. Three nominations were received for the Alayoralty. Mr. G. J. Anderson (retiring Alayor), Air. A. J. C. Runciman, and Air. W. Dobson. For nine seats on the council there are nineteen candidates; for two seats on tho AA’aipawa Hospital Board there are three candidates, and a like number for three scats on the Dannovirke Power Board. NELSON. For the Alayoralty Air. AV. Lock was returned unopposed. MASTERTON. Air. O. Pragnell was rg-elected Mayor unopposed. There are ten nominations for eight seats on the South AVard of tho Borough Council. Air. H. E. Either and Mr. G. Jordan were elected unopposixl to represent tho North AVard on the council. AVOODVILLE. Air. H. P. Horne was re-elected Alayor unopposed. '1 hero are ten nominations for nine seats on t,ho council.