MAYORAL RESPONSIBILITY

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 92, 19 April 1921, Page 6

MAYORAL RESPONSIBILITY

A|i we do npt regard Mr. P. H. Hickey as a suitable maji to fill the Mayoral chair, during the next two important and perhaps critical years, we are frtad that he is faced with a straight-out, duel instead of the triangular content that at one time appeared to b.ejjkely. Mr.. His: lap's, disappearance from the Mayoral election is partly compensated by his, presence among the 42 candidates for the City Council. His decision is in the public interest, and, we believe, in his own also, for a City Oounpillor^hip in the hand (more pr less) is probably more valuable than a Mayoralty in the bush. As th.c electors now have to make a simple choice between Mr. Wright and Mr. Hickey, they should have no difficultly in making up their mind, provided that they intend to cast a municipal vote and not a political or partisan vote. In all matters of local government—and, for that matter, in central government also—the financialeconomic question is going to be uppermost. What is wanted is not socialistic theory, but practical business manage^ ment, base.d upon the actualities of a period of deflation and perhaps depression. It is possible to frame a policy that will be considerate pf human need^s without being uneconomic, and that will combine pruijenca with progress. Forsuch a. poljcy the electors, if they W« wise, will look to Mr. Wright rather than to Mr. Hickey.