CITY COUNCIL AND GENERAL A POLITICS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 10 August 1934, Page 2

CITY COUNCIL AND GENERAL A POLITICS

(To the Editor) Sir, —In his letter, published in your issue of last evening, Councillor Washbourn has completely missed the point. No one in his senses will deny that the prolonging of the life of Parliament by itself is a grave violation of a fundamental principle; but the point at issue in the present argument is that it is not within the province of the City Council to attempt to interfere. If the action taken by the Council is right-, then it is in order for each and every local body in New Zealand to protest against any political action which may happen to displease it. Very little imagination is required to see the chaos that would result if Parliament had to receive and take notice of all the motions, petitions and protests that might reach it from our innumerable local bodies. In any case, the recent opinion (expressed by. the Council was not the -voice.of Nelson- City, but only that of an insignificantly small group of Councillors. Would it not be more appropriate if the Council, instead, ol wasting its time protesting against matters which do not concern it as a body, applied its energies to the all too many important problems, as for example the water supply scheme, which the ratepayers have a right, to expect it to solve, and which are strictly within its own province? In plain language, let the Council mind its own business. —I am, etc., G. L. SEE. Nelson, Bth Aug.

(To the Editor) Sir,—lt ■is to be greatly regretted that our City Council saw fit at its last meeting to pass a motion of “protest” censuring the Government. Whether the extension of Parliament for a further year is or is not justified has no connection whatever with the principle —or lack of principle—shown by some of our City Fathers in abusing an honoured position of trust to further their individual political aims. This is entirely a matter for the electors, and it is gratifying to note that Councillors Neale, Huggins, Moynagh and Gibbs appreciated it as such. If political measures are to be discussed with municipal matters at our Council meetings one wonders bow the electors will express their political opinions at the next municipal election. —I am, etc., UNCONSIDERED RATEPAYER,' Nelson, 9th Aug. (To the Editor) Sir, —I was surprised to see in ypur last night’s issue a letter from Jff. E. A. Washboum—which to my mind was a laboured and certainly weak attempt to justify his action and that of the City Council in discussing a debateable political issue which had no bearing whatever on . municipal work or administration.";:’li is/certainly liable to make the Council a laughing stock. It is also surprising that a chairman should permit such a motion to be moved or discussed, no matter what his personal opinion may have been on the question of Parliament extending its own life without consulting the electors. This may be ’considered undemocratic or what was termed “out of order,” but surely it would be more “out of order for a municipal or other local body to discuss and pass a political resolution which did- not concern the Council in any way as a body. May I add that the press in the main centres has already given prominence to the discussion and action of the City Council.— I am, etc., NELSONIAN.