Nelson Evening Mail. SATURDAY, MAY 19, 1917. COUNCIL MATTERS.

Nelson Evening Mail, 19 May 1917, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail. SATURDAY, MAY 19, 1917. COUNCIL MATTERS.

TWO letters in another column, by "Ratepayer" and "W. S. Mears," call for no reply other than to point out that they gravely misrepresent the contentions of The Mail. For instance, "Ratepayer" says (and he goes so far as to put his remarks in quotations to make it appear that the words have been lifted from the article in question), "You admit that the old Council did not put the position before the ratepayers." ■ Our statement was that old Councillors were certainly at fault in not defending their actions before the election. , Further, there lias been no suggestion bv The Mail that Cr. Carlisle should resign. He certainly broke lii' ; pledge to the electors in the important matter of the rate question, but it was our contention that as no other course of action was open to any thinking man, and as nine-tenths of the ratepayers at least, would have done the same were they members of the Council, there was. in "the circumstances, no injustice to them. Our object was to direct attention to the importance of pre-election statements, especially as regards promises to the electors based on flimsy evidence, and also to recall the manly stand made by some old Councillors, who during their tenure of office had endeavoured to raise the rates to meet the heavy liabilities. There is a. good deal of shuffling and blinking at the facts by some members of local , bpdies—and these men can render no good service to the citizens. Unless close interest is taken by the public In their affairs, there is always the tendency to be* swayed by the claptrapper and the dispenser of mumbo-jumbo rather than by the solid, and at times unpleasant, arguments of the man who is prepared to render his best service to the people, regardless of the consequences so far as his personal popularity is concerned. We have already made it quite clear that we have not accused Or. Carlisle of vote-fishing, but if he had given real consideration to Council matters before he framed hi« address to the electors, he could not in face of the facts, have pledged himself to reduce the rates. Because lie_ did no? know, he blames the old Council. A'N o have made no attempt to defend the old Council, for that has not been our purpose, but we may say here, that while not .approving of all their actions, and agreeing that new blood was needed, no set of .men who have endeavoured to serve the city have been so unjustifiably maligned'as the old Council. Just as the rrefient Council cannot be blamed ur she state of the finance's now, so the old Council cannot be blamed for the havoc the huge expenditure the gasholder made, for thev found themselves committed to this' expenditure when they entered office. Yet some people liaA e the shear*" sublime audacity v> lav this expenditure at their floors. This sod of thine so clearlv shows an utter neglect of the essential facts, that is it any wonder thrt the discussion of public affairs is often so exasperating to those who have some regard for i list ice and a desire to give all men their dues.