The Christchurch Star PUBLISHED BY New Zealand Newspapers Ltd. TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1931. A “GRAFT” ALLEGATION.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 77, 31 March 1931, Page 8

The Christchurch Star PUBLISHED BY New Zealand Newspapers Ltd.

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1931. A “GRAFT” ALLEGATION.

Gloucester Street end Cathedral Square CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND. Land— Rtpf—tivwi R. B. BRETT & SON HEW BRIDGE HOUSE. 31/34 NEW BRIDGE STREET LONDON. LC4

* I ''HERE is a veiled allegation of “ graft ” in the statement of the Mayor that councillors voting for a 10 per cent reduction in the wages of municipal employees were “ making gifts of public money to their personal friends.” The allegation is baseless however one looks at it. To quote a list of contracts let by the City Council can prove nothing. The contractors are not employing council labour, and have based their tenders on rates of wages that are ruled, and will be ruled,* exclusively by the Arbitration Court. Whether these contractors have friends on the City Council does not enter into the matter at all, and the Mayor was speaking in execrable taste when he referred to them either individually or collectively. He adopted a flagrantly false premise for the purpose of suggesting that his opponents on the council were the friends of the “ bosses,” and that his friends, on the other hand, were to be counted among the workers. It might be charitable to assume that the Mayor had merely forgotten himself again, and imagined himself in Parliament participating in the stonewall against general wage reductions, but this could hardly be so when he mentioned individual contracts, for these contracts may even be completed before the wages of the, men working on. them come under review.

MAYORAL INDIGNITIES. r I 'HE Mayor’s second outburst at the City Council meeting was not the sort of thing that is likely to inspire respect for him or his oflice. To tell a councillor to “ shut his mouth ” was contemptuous in the extreme. These uncouth Mayoral shafts are sufficient to make self-respecting citizens blush for the reputation of Christchurch. At the best of times, nowadays, it is rude enough repartee that serves to enliven the council meetings, but when the chairman loses his temper he can expect little reverence in return either for his cloth or his chain.

A MERE CANARD. npHE SUGGESTION of Mr W. Nash, Labour member for Hutt, that the Government and the Reform Party intend to force through a Bill extending the life of Parliament for two years is a pure canard. The United Party could never agree to an extension of the life of Parliament under any circumstances, for the principle of triennial parliaments is a fundamental part of the Liberal policy.* To say that the Government fears to go to the country is a statement hopelessly in conflict with the whole attitude of the Prime Minister ever since taking office. Mr Forbes has exhibited a far greater courage and a far greater disregard of the sweets of office than even his best friends expected of him, and so far from fearing an appeal to the electors he has every prospect of being given a working majority with which to continue in the course to which he has so firmly set his hand.

IS IT CONSISTENT? ' I ''HE stage managers of the Labour Party in Parliament are not very subtle. When the Government agreed to a modification of the closure, making it applicable only to the present Parliament, the Labour members, instead of accepting this half loaf, were so completely taken aback that they walked out of the Chamber,.” leaving the dirty business,” as the member for Christchurch East so elegantly expressed it, “ to the dirty people who made it.” What are the public to think of such fierce indignation? Can it mean that the Labour members, who profess to be so sure of office next year, would really like to have this power at their command, or are they disgusted at the prospect of being deprived of the opportunity of repealing such loathsome legislation?