Marlborough Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1886.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 2019, 23 November 1886, Page 2

Marlborough Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1886.

All that our contemporary can find to urge in favor of Mr Dous* lin’a claims to the Mayoralty lies in generalisations as to “ his abilities,” u his disinterested zeal for the public interest” and “ that he has at times advocated projects and ideas which are in advance of the times he lives in ” —in advance of his grandmother, might, with more truth, have been written. Our contemporary hopes that in this contest between Crs Douslin and Riley “ the preference will be given to the older public servant,” meaning Mr Douslin. There is no sentiment of this kind about us; we hope the preference will be given to the better public servant, as it should undoubtedly be given, apart from all sentimental considerations. In previous articles we have refrained from using Mr Douslin’s errors and absurdities as weapons against him in this contest. But it appears that in this kindness we have been misrepresented, for our contemporary actually complains that “ the most that can be said against him [Mr Douslin] <fec, &c.” Accepting this as an invitation to be more ex« plicit in our criticism we shall point out a few of the stupidities of which Mr Douslin has been guilty, and before we conclude we think that, despite his present championship of that gentleman, we shall compel our contemporary to admit that we are right in our contentions and that,. if he spoke the truth, he thioks with us. For we shall quote throughout this article from the Marlborough Express. On the ques'ion of granting a seven years’ concession to the owner of the gasworks, “Mr Douslin contended that no monopoly was asked for, and argued that but for Mr Pritchard and Mr Hutcheson there would have been no gasworks here.” Error No, 1. If that com. cession had been granted the gasworks property would not to-day have belonged to tho ratepayers as it now does, Mr Douslin did his level best to continue the monopoly to Mr Pritchard and twice voted in that direction in the Council, first on the original motion, and again in opposition to Cr Riley s motion to rescind the former- resolution. In fact, had it not been for Or Riley’s prompt action we doubt if the ratepayers would,ever have become owners of the gasworks. Then wfi come to the famous Fair hall diversion scheme which cost the ratepayers a considerable sura for plans otc, and which, in tbe face of strong and intelligent public opinions, had to be abandoned. That scheme was supported by Mr Douslin, if, indeed, he did not play a more prominent part. In order to show what touch Mr Douslin on that occasion had with public opinion we quote the following resolution passed at a public meeting, held on the 20th March, to consider the question «Mr Adams moved “ That in the opinion of this meeting the Fairhall diversion should not be proceeded with as it would be a standing l menace to the town and a waste of the ratepayers’ money”-—Thermo** tion was carried by 59 to 5 ! Error No 2, approved by Mr Douslin. The next item we chance across appears in the Express of March 9th.

Strangely enough the paragraph is headed “ An Absurd Experiment” and runs as follows •, — “Cr McArtney reported that the experiment of sinking two holes at the corner of Weethly street to carry off the water from Foster’s land had proved an entire failure. One was stopped up altogether and the other had turned into an' artesian well. “Cr Douslin pleaded guilty to having advised .the experiment being tried.” What on* the 9th of March, according to the Express itself, was “An Absurd Experiment ” is today, again according to the Express, a project “in advance the times,” Or Douslin is gui ty of both and must settle the matter with our sapient contemporary. Absurdity No 1. Then with reference to the Impounding fees, Cr Douslin tried to set up the Borough Council into a kind of Star Chamber, on a small scale, a very small scale. We find from the Express that *.* On;.the.motion of Cr Parker, seconded by Cr Douslin it was resolved that the fee for impounding should be Is per head.” Ore Riley and’Ching and the Mayor recorded their votes against the motion, on the ground that the Council had no power to pass any such resolution, contrary to Act of the General] Assembly.” Actions were taken against the impounder for charging fees as empowered by the above resolution; it was then found that Or Riley’s opinion was correct, and Cr Douslin was again wrong. The impounder had to refund, the motion was afterwards rescinded, and the Council had to pay Court costs. Error No. .3,,. On the Bth of May we find mention of the following almost Ihistorical piece of nonsense:—“ Cr Douslin gave the following notice of motion :—That a concrete culvert be erected in - Collie’s Hollow to allow the tide to ebb and flow, and that the banks of the creek be levelled and grassed and shrubs be planted on the reserve; that a lamp and fountain be erected in Market Place, also that the celebrated cannon be mounted on a pedestal and the whole grouped together.” On the very evening that these costly ornamental works were proposed we find that the Town Clerk had (reported the debit balance to he £3030 16s lid! Absurdity No. 2. Keeping to the Ex* press we find the record of another stupendous folly proposed to he erected by Cr Douslin, in the shape of a letter advocating a scheme for a harbor for Blenheim. We were to have “Greenaway 'breakers,” “fixed buoys with electric light,” “dynamo electric machines,” “torpedo dredges” &c., &c. Absurdity No. 3. And what was this scheme to cost, and who was to pay for all these things ? ' The ratepayers of .course. . And will .the ratepayers then trust the Borough funds. in the hands of such an extravagant visionary ? Certainly not, if they are the practical, sensible people we take them for.

If Mr Douslin ever had any chance of the Mayoralty he loßt it after speaking at Ewart’s Hall last night. The Mayoral election for the Borough of Blenheim may now be considered over ; Mr Douslin completely damned himself last evening. But we do not wish to be hard on Mr Douslin. T hat gentleman is so impatent of criticism, so susceptible to the goodhumored chaff of his friends (who put peculiar constructions on our articles for the purpose of enjoying his discomfiture) that we feel inclined to let him down lightly. But We would not be doing our duty to the publio if we refrained from pointing to Mr Douslin’a latest political doctrine. Some time ago Mr Douslin, ns an expert, reported that the Omafea Bridge was good for two years longer, and it was, therefore, decided not to spend the money lying in the bank for a new bridge. The carpenters of Blenheim were naturally aggrieved at this. Mr Douslin becomes a candidate for the Mayoralty and then comes a ohange of front. He is now willing to spend the money for a new bridge, although he himself has affirmed that the old bridge is good for two years longer 1 Why ? Because he desires the votes of the carpenters on Wednesday. Surely the burgesses will not tolerate conduct of this kind.