THE MAYOR REPLIES.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXIV, Issue 829, 1 August 1933, Page 7

THE MAYOR REPLIES.

Criticism of Statement by Cr Andrews. END OF FRIENDSHIP. “ Councillor Andrews’s references to the Mayor as holding his various positions by cunning, or, to use his own words, by scheming, is the most grosslyinsulting, unfair and vindictive attack that has been made upon me during my whole career in public life,” said the Mayor to-day in reply to Council- ( lor E. IT. Andrews’s comments on thfe transfer of M.E.D. f finds. In reply to statements made by the chairman of the Christchurch Citizens’ Association, I made entirely impersonal, explanatory references to the question at issue, and Councillor Andrews, in an astounding outburst, introduces an insulting personal note and says that he has always said that the Mayor holds his various positions by cunning or by scheming. “ All I wish to say is that if Councillor Andrews has held that opinion about me he has effectively obscured the fact, and has worn a most misleadin mask in his associations with me. Many Hard Things Said. , “ I can only say that if Councillor Andrew's thinks that of me, then the less I have to do with him the better I will be pleased. I have had many hard things said about me, and the, man in public life who gives knocks must expect to receive them in return, but I cannot remember that I have previously been charged with cunning and scheming, and with the insincerity that is implied in the remark. If I have used the word scheming in conversation with Councillor Andrews I may say now that I had no recollection of it, and would use it in a perfectly honest and honourable meaning as an alternative to the word thinking, for I have always regarded myself as much more ingenuous than sophisticated, as Councillor Andrews seems to suggest. “ I am frankly disappointed to learn that a .man who, despite our real political differences, I have met a thousand times in a friendly way should have held me in such low- esteem as is suggested by the words he uses with reference to me in his newspaper inter- “ Municipal Law.” “ Section 59 of the Municipal Corporations Act provides: cil may from time to time transfer to the general account any cash surplus remaining to the credit of any separate account which the council is obliged by law- to keep Showing the moneys accruing from any public works or trading undertakings, executed, maintained or carried on- by the council, or to transfer the whole or any part of such surplus to a separate account for the maintenance or renewal of such works; provided that no moneys shall be so transferred until due provision is made for all sums with w’hich the separate account is by law chargeable and for the payment out of the separate account of the interest or interests and sinking fund, on any loan raised in connection with the work, or undertaking to which the separate account relates. Sub-section two—lf the balance in any of the separate accounts (electricity in this case) is at any time insufficient to meet the lawful charges thereon, the council may transfer such sums as are necessary from the general account to meet the sum, may at any time repay any sum so transferred out of any excess in the receipts over the liabilities of any such account.

“ The point in .regard to the quotation from the law just given which I desire to make clear is that section 59 of the Municipal Corporations Amendment of 1928 gives power to transfer surpluses from a trading account to the general account after provision is made for all lawful charges, but there is no power to retransfer back from the general account to the trading account unless the balance in the trading account is insufficient to meet the lawful charges thereon. “ Ignorant of the Law.”

“Mr Andrews is therefore ignorant of the law, or for party purposes ignores the law when he criticises Mr J. M’Combs, M.P., who was chairman of the Finance Committee last year, for not having returned to the Electricity Department the balance of £6388, the difference between the amount of £18,740 transferred on the motion of Councillor Andrews for restroom purposes and the cost of the rest room.

“ Clearly the money having been previously transferred to the general account, Councillor M’Combs had no power to retransfer it to the M.E.D. As an experienced Councillor, Air Andrews should have known this. Mr Andrews also very unfairly attempts to saddle the Labour Party with the responsibility for not having given effect to a motion moved by Councillor E. R. M’Combs—following Councillor Andrews’s transfer of the £18,740, namely that the question of the conditions under which the amount was transferred be referred to a conference of the Finance and Electricity Committees for a report. Labour Blamed.

Surely this attempt to put the blame on the Labour Party for failure to give effect to the motion is sheer impudence on the part of Councillor Andrews. The motion by himself to transfer the £18,740 from the M.E.D. to the general account was moved on June 23, 1930, and Councillor E. R. M’Combs’s motion providing for a conference of the Finance and Electricity committees to consider the question of the conditions under which the amount was to be transferred was passed at the same meeting. Councillor Andrews was chairman of the Finance Committee : he had behind him a majority of "Citizens’ Association controlling the policy of the council, and he and they remained in o ce until April 28, 1981, for nine months after the carrying of the motion. Apparently during the whole of that time no attempt was made by Councillor Andrews or his Citizens’ Association friends to arrange the conference of the two committees. Yet Councillor Andrews now with brazen effrontery attempts to place the blame for his own negligence on the shoulders of the Labour Party.

May I, without egitism, direct his attention to the fact that when I was chairman of the Finance Committee and moved for the transfer of £12.500 from the M.E.D. funds for the relief of unemployment by way of loan. I did. with the consent of the council, make definite arrangements for the repayment of the amount. That arrangement is being carried out, and the M.E.D. is being repaid the £12.500 at

the rate of about £I4OO a year. I did not leave the job to someone else to do as Councillor Andrews has done.” ..(Comment made by Councillor Andrews is reported on Page 4.)