DID NOT GET SUPPORT

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 843, 11 December 1929, Page 11

DID NOT GET SUPPORT

MR. TANSLEY ASKED IN VAIN TRANSPORT NOMINATION At the conclusion of the Mount Roskill Road Board s ordinary business last evening, Air. G. E. Tansley announced hia candidature for the seat on the Transport Board made vacant by the resignation of Mr. E. S. Morton. Ho solicited the support of the board on tho ground that it would serve as a guaranteo to tho people of his claim to conserve the interests of the district. He also requested the chairman, Mr. E. i\ Jones, to be one of the signatories to his nomination. “1 have my nomination paper with me.” he continued, “and 1 now ask the chairman to sign it.” On the chairman inquiring whether any member \\ ished to speak on the ! question, Mr. E W. Foote responded by saying that ho could not support Mr. Tansley's condidature on the ground that he had on several occasions publicly supported the City Council’s representatives on the Transport Board. Mr. Tansley: No! No! I am not asking for individual support. 1 desire the collective support of the board. Mr. S. Scarborough contended that as Mr. Tansley had always expressed his satisfaction with the policy of the Transport Board it was quite evident that ho could not represent Mount Roskill. By supporting him, the board would first have to swallow its own words. Mr. S. I. Goodall did not agree with all that Mr. Tansley had done, but he preferred him before the other candidates and deprecated the tone of the previous speaker’s remarks. Mr. Jones explained that Mr. Tansley had placed him in a most awkward position. Ho had already promised to bo one of Mr. R. G. Clark’s nominators, but Mr. Clark had since generously absolved him from that promise. If the board agreed, as a body, to support Mr. Tansley, he (Mr. Jones) would require time to consider whether, as chairman, he should accede to Mr. Tansley’s request. That, however, would not prevent the board from expressing its confidence in Mr. Tansley. Mr. E. A. Pearce contended that the board had no right to instruct the chairman to sign the nomination form. It would be tantamount to dictating how he should vote. In his opinion it was a question which should be left to the private discretion of each member. Each had the right to vote as he pleased. “If you feel that you can’t sign the paper, I will not ask you,” was Mr. Tansley’s reply. He maintained that the attitude he had always taken toward the Transport Board was that it had never been allowed to function properly and had been subjected to too much outside interference. He denied that it was antagonistic to the suburban areas and pointed to the expedition it had displayed in laying the Dominiop Road extension tramline. Tho incident closed by Mr. Tansley formally withdrawing his request for the chairman’s signature to his nomination paper.