ADDRESSES BY MESSRS FRANCIS AND GLEN

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 190, 10 May 1938, Page 17

ADDRESSES BY MESSRS FRANCIS AND GLEN

A meeting in support of the candidature of Mr. .J. 11. Francis and Mr. R. A. Glen, citizens’ candidates for the Wellington Hospital Board, was held in the Dominion Farmers' Institute Building last night. The mayor, Mr. T. C. A. Hislop, also addressed the meeting. Mr. T. Hills presided. Welcoming those present. Mr. Hills said the meeting had been arranged by the younger men of the community, who thought that new blood should be introduced into local body affairs in the interests of the city. Mr. Francis asserted that the Trades Hall was really running the hospital and wanted the electors that the Trades Hall would run all the local bodies if they voted for the men ou the Labour ticket. He outlined the hospital district and said it seemed foolish to spend nearly a million pounds on a hospital in one corner of the district. There were 50.(100 people in the Hutt Valley and they should be provided for. Some money had to be spent on the hospital, but it should be spent wisely and a iiew hospital should be built in the Hutt Valley. Mr. Glen criticised the capital expenditure of the present hospital board and advocated the establishment of auxiliary hospitals nt the Hutt and for the treatment of convalescents and children. Yet there was a greater and more vital issue at stake —the"question of party control or even party representation on the board as against free individual representation. He said he did not care whether the philosophy of Labour was right or wrong, but asserted that the mechanics of nolitical party government on local bodies was anti-social and utterly wrong. It impaired efficiency, stifled personal initiative, subtracted from individual conscience and was inconsistent with the free exercise of individual reason. Mr. Glen said he was not discussing any narrow political questions. Nevertheless, Labo.ur had said “this election will show how the country regards the present Labour administration.” He asked what that statement really meant? It meant that the election would show whether sectional interest would dominate community interest. If that were so, could the challenge be ignored? Did that challenge not" contain more than an element of dictatorial feeling and promise? Was the promise of social subjection not inherent in it?