The Sun TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1919. VOTE AND VOTE RIGHT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VI, Issue 1624, 29 April 1919, Page 6 (Supplement)

The Sun TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1919. VOTE AND VOTE RIGHT.

From the point of view of actual qualifications, Mr J. J. Dougall should be an easy winner to-morrow. Given a community capable of distinguishing between solid merit on the one hand and charlatanism and caucusmade experimentalism on the other, there would be no risk of the mayoral chair having to support the wrong occupant. Unfortunately, mainly because Christchurch is Christchurch—it is not necessary to go further into details of explanation—there is a danger of misfits like Dr Thackcr, M.P., and Mr J. McCombs, M.P., splitting the votes sufilciently to manoeuvre a majority. It is generally true that in national or civic politics the people get the representation they deserve. Are citizens, then, going to order things so to-morrow that the day after they will be the laughing-stock of the rest' of the Dominion? The implication mav seem needlessly harsh, but in reality is no exaggeration. Dr Thacker bases his claims to the high office primarily on his advocacy of Port Christchurch and his patronage of various kinds of athletics. He likes to be considered a "good sport," and appeals to all his fellow-"sports" in the city to honour him with their votes on that account. That is' one string to his bow. The other is the canal scheme. What League football or the scrapping of Lyttelton has to do with the Chief Magistracy of the city we cannot comprehend. The truth is that Dr Thacker is hard put to justify his plea for consideration as a mayoral candidate. His jovial and reckless irresponsibility is proverbial. He knows little or nothing about municipal enterprise. Even if he were more adequately equipped on that side, his spare time is—or ought to be—taken up with his Parliamentary duties. We say that the member for Christchurch East, indifferent politician as he is, cannot possibly combine.the two functions of parliamentarian and mayor with any hope of success. Nor, for that matter, can the Labour representative. It may be a>gued fairly that Mr McCombs's re-election is no certainty. He appears to have forsaken his old love only to be rebuffed in a new courtship. The competition is becoming keener; the electors more discerning. But Mr McCombs, even without the magical letters after his name, would not be, in our opinion, eligible for the mayoralty. Certainly he takes his political studies more seriously than does the canal nominee, but that virtue is outweighed by his anti-militarist tendencies in the heat of the great war. Mr McCombs was never other than a staunch opponent of conscription. He did nothing to obviate the necessity for the Military Service Act, neither did he assist the smooth working of that measure when the country was compelled to introduce it. He may—and does—talk largely of what he and his colleagues have achieved in the way of urging increases in pensions and allowances. On that point the anti-conscription-Ssts seize more credit than is due to :fhem. What electors who value the Reputation of the city should remember is that Mr McCombs and his kind, when the Empire was in extremis, persuaded no man to step into the preach. The struggle, they said, was : fao-concern of ours, or theirs. That ■rather despicable spirit can best.be rewarded by telling these folk they are not wanted on the council. Mr tDougall's record is easily the most His loyalty, local standing, and business acumen are unquestioned. In addition, he will not be galled upon to divide his attentions Should he be elected mayor. Civically, "we stand on the threshold of a new foja. Important enterprises, some Jbithcrto unthought of in connection *fyith municipal activities, press for Consideration. As the city grows, its Sisponsibilities increase in proporod. To whom shall we entrust lose responsibilities—to men of proven worth, who will place the KonJraruiity ? s ■ interests before all Bithers, or to theorists" of doubtful nlelligence or, patriotism, who may \ be; well-meaning, but are assuredly not well-informed on

the vital subjects of civic government? Those who possess a developed sfinse of citizenship will" know what answer to make tomorrow. They will vote—and vote right. Which is to say, that they will not be misled by windy eloquence about matters unconnected with the city's affairs into bestowing their confidence on unworthy and illequipped propagandists. "Good sports" are not necessarily sound financiers, nor cost-of-living experts heaven-sent managers. Let us have dignified and competent administration in Christchurch; more than ■ ever before, we are going to need it.