Evening Post. TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1921. TRUSTEESHIP: DUTIES OF ELECTORS

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 98, 26 April 1921, Page 6

Evening Post. TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1921. TRUSTEESHIP: DUTIES OF ELECTORS

To-morrow the electors will eleci supervisors of matters municipal, of the hospital and charitable aid services, and of the working of the port of Wellington. The occasion should not be one for political or party fighting, because, as a general rule, the questions that come before the City Council, the Hospital and Charitable Aid Board, and the Harbour BoaTd are non-political and non-party. It is true that, in certain cases, issues that are parallel with political issue* will present themselves. For instance, ul connection with the City Council's housing scheme, the question of freehold or leasehold unavoidably arises, and it is not surprising to read of a Council debatl and division reminiscent of similar happenings in "another place." But the great bulk of municipal, hospital and charitable aid, and harbour business. is, or ought to be, non-party, and what is required of the elected is a trusteeship, the principal duty of which is to see that the City or the institutions or the port receives twenty shillings' worth of value for every pound paid out. This loyalty to the community-interest is not inconsistent with fairness to sectional interests . By all means let a local body be a model employer; let it scorn to take an unfair advantage of any of its employees, or of the general condition of the labour market'; but let the trustees see to it that the model is not all one one side. Model employership, without model employeeship, will not last any longer than the money in the till. . On the trustees the city depends to see that the services to the community are properly remunerated—and properly carried out. We do not think that the City's trust would be well-founded if a majority of the City Council, or of the H. and C.A. Board, or of the Harbour Board was composed of Labour representatives under the orders and discipline of. Labour's sectional, class-conscious, and ex-tremist-led organisation. Labour domination would mean that instead of the business being politioalised only on rare unavoidable occasions, the political element would enter at every turn, to the great danger of the element of efficiency. Labour, with all its faults, caste so many votes that we see no valid ground for attempting to exclude Labour from all representation on local bodies. But The Post is emphatically opposed to the election of a Labour Mayor or of a Labour majority on any of the local bodies concerned. The 'City should be prepared to work with, but not under, the extrem-ist-led sectionalists. It may be objected th^t there is no half-way house—that the Labour tickets should either be voted right in or thrown right out. To deny representation to any considerable section of opinion because it is sectional, or even because it is extremist, is a course that could not be justified except in extraordinary circumstances ; in ordinary conditions, it would appear to be both unfair and unsafe. Unsafe, because the statesmanship-of-inertia (which is the principal statesmanship in most countries) is about to discover that the co-operation of dissentient Sections may be less irksome than their non-co-operation. Whether Gandhi is right or wrong in urging that the measure of representation offered by the British Government to the people of ifidin is contemptible, the fact remain*

that when a great body of people become convinced that they are denied a fair chance of co-operation, and that therefore they must resort to non-co-operative a dangerous situation has been created. Therefore, those who would completely shut the door of representative institutions on a considerable section (however misguided) of articulate opinion should consider carefully whether it is safe to sit on safety valves, and whether it is an improyeinent to get out of the frying-pan into the fire. There is little doubt that a Labour majority would make local government a political issue. But to try to keep all Labour men off local bodies also savours of a political attitude; besides which, if there is anything in the idea of proportional representation, it is unfair. Labour attracts too many votes to be ruled out of consideration ; and those who declare for " no Labour an the City Council " would probably be much surprised, and perhaps not altogether pleased, if their wish materialised. The Post certainly would not favourably view a. rejection of all Labour candidates, and believes that such a rejection would be unfair, unsafe, and hardly possible. The word " stalwart " has in latter days been misapplied, but the sort of stalwart bred in labour circles is a useful man when in the right place,- the right place being, in municipal affairs, defence of the Town Belt and similar public institutions. Much as wo distrust Labour domination of the employership side of local government, we are prepared to believe that Labour tenacity of principle in such matters as the raided Town Belt would have proved, years ago, very useful. While rejecting the Labour attempt to impose a " ticket," the electors would be wise to consider the claims of any individual in that ticket who, in their opinion, is qualified for trusteeship in the non-political, local government sense. So long as extremist leadership continues, no Labour candidate, and certainly not Mr. Hickey, should be considered in connection with the Mayoralty^ and care should be taken that Labour does not swamp the Hospital and Charitable Aid Board, for which the non-Labour candidates offering number considerably less than the available seats and than their opponents. The Harbour Board election is also important. Somehow or other, the policy of inertia must be shaken up sufficiently to secure a change in the present system of over-manning the wharves with casual workers. Constructive reform is required in this respect, and electors should remember who has been behind it when they cast their votes. The need of the moment on all public bodies is progress with prudence, and this principle is not monopolised by any of the " tickets" of which we have so far heard. The elector would be wise to vote not for " tickets " but for individuals as their public records disclose them, with care not to subject any local body to the dictation of'the Labour political-industrial machine.