The Star. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1882. UNDER WHICH KING, HAWERIANS ?

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume III, Issue 356, 28 November 1882, Page 2

The Star. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1882. UNDER WHICH KING, HAWERIANS ?

Whether the moving cause were interest in borough affairs or a sense of duty to encourage free shows the burgesses certainly attended in good numbers at Mr. Thomson's meeting last evening. The audience was orderly and attentive as Hawera audiences always are, there was just sufficient fun to prevent flatness and staleness, and on the whole we think burgesses went away a little wiser in municipal matters, and a little more appreciative of the difficulties of a Council which has plenty of work before it but small rates and a very short borrowing tether. Not that either of the candidates — for it turned out to be as much Mr. Bate's meeting as Mr. Thomson's, if not a little more — said anything very startling, but their remarks certainly did show the difficulties there are in connection with the water supply and drainage questions. As for the rest, most of it was neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring. Mr. Thomson said we had informed the ratepayers that there was no difference between the views of the candidates. We had not said so, but had we done it would only have been another instance of how very correct this great and good journal always is. Save in one or two respects, their views are exceedingly alike. Both candidates are remarkably strong on the reduction of expenses — to use an Americanism, both go bald-headed for a fire engine — both will use their best endeavors to push Hawera a-head — both scorn a salary — and they quarrel as to which first started in the matter of local industries. On the last question, we are bound to say some very apropos things were said, which will bear attention after the present election is over. Of course, each has one or two pet hobbies. Mr. Bate has an affection for deep wells ; Mr. Thomson wants plantations and gardens, which shall be useful for the present as places of resort from the hot and dusty streets, and in the future, when drainage and water supply and streets and such trifles of the hour shall have been lost amid the wreck of matter, shall stand forth like the pyramids of Egypt, the tablets of Nine veh, and the ruined temples of Greece and Rome, and enable a Schliemann twenty centuries hence, to assure an astonished world that civilisation had reached Hawcra so soou as the nineteenth century, and that the thrilling stories as to the hardness oil the early settlers' lives must be deemed apocryphal iv view of the

undeniable evideuce presented by these gardens iv favor of the contrary theory that they were steeped in pleasures and ruined by luxury. The only difference of opinion between the candidates is on the important question of the disposal of the £1500 loft from the loan and allocated to particular purposes, and we are glad to notice that Mr. Thomson supports our view of the matter. Mr. Bate; last evening, gave no very clear reason why the money should be taken. He said that the sum was too small to secure the objects aimed at ; but that is no reason for spending it on some other purpose. He did not show that it could be profitably spent on streets. If we keep that money there will be ,£ISOO less to borrow when we do go in for these works, and in the meantime it will be much better to lend it to the Borough Chambers fund at 6 percent, than to spend it on the streets, especially when the security is so good that there would be no difficulty in releasing the money at any time by raising a new loan on the reserve rents, whereas once spent on the streets it would be gone. This is the main difference of opinion between the candidates, aud we must say Mr. Thomson has the best of it. As to the rest, there is not much between their respective claims. We cannot heartily support either, because there are in the council one if not two men who would fill the office of mayor very much better than Mr. Bate or Mr. Thomson. We should like the candidature of the latter ever so much better were we not afraid that, to a very large extent, he is under the domination of Councillor King. Indeed, at last night's jieeting it would have been difficult for a stranger to say whether Mr. Bate were fighting Mr. Thomson or Mr. King. Mr. King, we believe, boasts of leading a party in the Council ; councillors say that one of their number never speaks, but always votes straight with Mr. King; aud if this party could be strengthened by the two votes of the Mayor, it would be a capital stroke for the party, but possibly a very bad thing for the borough. Mr. Thomson has been running pretty closely with Councillor King during the past 3 r ear, but if he be elected we hope he will cut the connection. A Mayor under the domination of a party would be intolerable. Mr. Bate's deficiencies we have already dealt with ; but his independence cannot be denied. The question for the burgesses is whether they prefer Mr. Bate with his mistaken views on the street question, his inconvenient connection with the Road Roard, and his independence, to Mr. Thomson, with right views on the loan question, freedom of official ties, but with the suspicion hanging about him that he is put into office by Councillor King and his party to secure party objects. Every ratepayer should think before he votes.