PUBLIC OFFICE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22004, 10 January 1935, Page 13

PUBLIC OFFICE

Sir, —The closing paragraph of the letter by Mr. I. G. Hughes of January 4 embodies principles upon which should be based decisions when public appointments —salaried or honorary—are being considered. Truly "we should recognise technical, moral and religious, and.practical or circumstantial qualifications, and one has no right to stand for public office who is not prepared to submit to reasonable public examination." Many will endorse this pronouncement as depending upon a candidate's willingness to so submit is to be appraised his or her claim to capability. Many qaulifications may be requisite to constitute "capability" for a specific undertaking, the number, of course, varying as the technical, moral and religious or other responsibilities joined with the office. No self-respecting borough will select for the honourable office of Mayor one known to have no claim 011 public respect or to good citizenship despite his organising ability or other auxiliary qualification, and neither will such a community tolerat/3 a schoolteacher or school committee chairman whose example and influence is inimical to the moral welfare of the voting — even though technically, practically and circumstantially either may be quite qualified. It will be well when all candidates for public office are compelled to face impartial examination, and when electors are examined in civics set to a reasonable standard of ethics, it will be even better. G. V. Hooper.