Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5665, 27 May 1879, Page 2

We have hitherto refrained from taking any very active or prominent part in the wordy warfare which has been carried on by the advocates of the rival Mayors. Our reasons for thus being comparatively passive are sufficiently obvious, and we have carefully avoided any expression of opinion on the merits of the candidate whoso success at the poll to-day we sincerely hope by this time to-morrow to be able to record. Any apparent want of zeal upon our part has, however, been amply atoned for by the vigorous advocacy of Mr. Hunter’s claims undertaken by one of our evening contemporaries ; and Mr. Hutchison has been equally strongly backed up the other. During this election and the former one some six months ago the subject has been almost “done to death,” and we now propose only to touch briefly upon one or two subjects which have turned up in the course of the electioneering campaign, and in respect to which it may be well on this the day of election to indicate the points of difference between the programme and the line of argument adopted by each of (he two candidates. We may summarise the speeches of Mr. Hunter by saying that he advocates the raising of a large loan for a complete scheme of city drainage and water supply, to be carried on simultaneously with the road-making already authorised. He proposes that the whole expenditure should be covered, if possible, by one single operation in the London money market. He hopes to see Mr. Clark’s drainage scheme carried out, because he believes it to be a complete and practical undertaking planned by a competent professional man of world-wide reputation, whose motives were, by the terms of the agreement between him and the City Council, placed absolutely above suspicion. In regard to the Harbor Board, Mr. Hunter says:—“ln ray capacity as City Couu- “ cillor I argued in favor of the fonna- “ tion of a Harbor Board, and if I should “ attain a step above a councillor I should “ still feel myself bound to hold the same “ opinions, and to give effect to them. I “ should endeavor to put matters on a “ satisfactory footing as speedily as pos- “ sible. There is this point also to be “ considered : the Queen’s wharf and the “ bonded warehouse would have to be “ sold by the Corporation to the Harbor “ Board, and that might prevent us “ going so far into debt as £500,000. “ At any rate, the municipality would “ have to pay less interest.” The moat captious of his critics must admit that this is a plain and simple programme, and one which the dullest citizen cannot fail to understand. We desire, so far as possible, to represent truly what Mr. Hutchison advocates on the above points. In regard to the loan question he is reported to have said : “ £200,000, and were about to borrow “ another £IOO,OOO, so that the debt of “ the city would be £300,000. He did “ not say the city would be unable to “ bear that debt, but he thought it was “ quite enough, and therefore should not “ advocate the borrowing of a single “ half-penny further. The hundred “ thousand already authorised to be “borrowed, if judiciously expended, “ would give work for some considerable “ time to all who wanted it—to every “ man who would do a fair day’s work r ‘ for a fair day’s wage—and would make “ things more comfortable for the city, “ more especially if worked in connection “ with the drainage scheme. They must “ at once decide that Climxe’s drainage “ scheme should be adopted, and should “ at once be carried out.” He reiterates his belief that Mr. Climie’s scheme is the best, and promises to try hard to persuade the rest of the Council to agree with him. “As to the proposition to “ establish a Harbor Board he did not “ think there ought to be such a body. , . . Further than that he would “:say he did not like the proposals of the “ Chamber of Commerce; they were alto- “ gether too one-sided to meet with the “ approbation of the citizens. . . . “ In regard to the water supply he could “only say he disapproved of any further “ loan for the purpose of increasing the “ water supply. He objected to borrow- “ ing to bring water from Wainuiomata “ at present, because he was satisfied “ that without that they could get an “abundant water supply for several “ years to come.” To the best of our ability we have given what we believe to be a fair epitome of the leading points of the two programmes issued by Messrs. Hunter and Hutchison. Our readers must judge for themselves which of the two they prefer. We have purposely consulted the reports of the original speeches, as these are most likely truly and faithfully, to reflect the real and original ideas of each candidate. Leaving all questions of persohal merit entirely on one side, we think that no. one can have failed to notice tiie very different tone of address adoptedffiy the two candidates. Mr. Hutchison has proved himself an able critic, and it his facts, and figures • were as thoroughly reliable as we could wish them, rather than dig up bid grievances we might even be willing to avoid any further opposition to Mr. Hutchison’s return, and to trust to the warnings con veyed by former exposures provingsuffi • cient to deter him, if elected, from swerving.from the straight path. Mr. Travers’ letter, republished by us yesterday, and the false figures adduced by Mr. Hutchison to prove his supposed economical management of municipal matters, which were corrected by us with the figures obtained from the Corporation books, and which are equally accessible to any ratepayers who.still believe that we are wrong and that he is right—these two facta alone condemn him, and forbid us to hope for upright honest dealing from him in any capacity. In addition to this, he suspects that Mr. Clark is dishonestly attempting to foist some person’s English drain pipes upon the Corporation ; that the reporters upon this paper wilfully misrepresent and misreport him ; that all the Corporation officers deliberately falsify leturns in order to exclude him from office; and that a “ ring” has been formed to shut out all those who do not belong to it, and whose object is to gain their own personal ends and aims. Mr. Hutchison does suspect too much; the honesty of our staff is impugned along with such a goodly company that it becomes quite unnecessary for us to defend the professional reputation of the’ reporters upon what Mr. Hutchison terms “ Mr. Hunter’s own “ newspaper,” but which is commonly supposed to belong to a newspaper company. Mr, .Hutchison was. asked an awkward question the other night. A ratepayer, asked: “If Wellington-made “ drain-pipes cost twice as much as Eng- “ lish, which would you propose to make “use of 1” Mr. Hutchison carefully evaded answering—he would use Wellington pipes ; he knew they would be nearly as cheap. We should have liked a plain yes or no, but a feather will show which way the wind blows- In another column a letter from a supporter of, Mr. Hutchison (a Mr. Worth) will bo found, which

fully exposes the duplicity and misrepresentation made use of by Mr. C. Taylor in describing an imaginary conversation which was supposed to have taken place in London. Both Mr. Worth’s own story and Mr. Taylor’s version of it are given, and they will, we think, prove interesting and instructive reading to the electors.