PLAIN SPEAKING

Waikato Times, Volume 117, Issue 19566, 3 May 1935, Page 6

PLAIN SPEAKING

CANDIDATES UNDER FIRE.

BRISK EXCHANGES AT FRANKTON. SOME CANDID COMMENTS. Some brisk verbal exchanges, In whloh personalities were at times freely Indulged In, characterised question time at Mr C. Lafferty’s meeting In the Frankton Town Hall last evening. Mr Lafferty's charges against the administration of the present counoll were assailed by several councillors who attended and at times there was uproar In the audience of over 360, some of the speakers being shouted down, while all of them had to run a gauntlet of heokllng. There were frequent Interjections from the audience.

Interest was running high when Mr A. M. Bisley rose from the body of the hall and asked permission for himself and Mr F. Findlay to reply to certain charges made by Mr Rafferty against them concerning their association with the Garden Place scheme. Permission being given, Mr Bisley explained that although he owned certain buildings in Ward Street, the land on which they stood was leased from the borough for 21 years, with the right of renewal. If the hill were removed the value of the land would Increase, and rather than benefit from this, the speaker would have to pay higher rent. Mr Lafferty had issued a manifesto in which he had named the speaker as one of the councillors guilty of improper actions in this matter, and he felt it his duty to explain his position. He alleged that in making these references to him Mr Lafferty was only endeavouring to mislead the ratepayers. If the hill were removed the land would be the ratepayers’ asset.

Reductions Impracticable. The Mayor had slated that not one shovelful of spoil would be taken from tiie hill without the ratepayers’ sanction, and the whole council had endorsed that, Mr Bisley continued. Referring to the suggestion that electrioity charges should be reduced he said that this matter had been introduced in the first place by Mr Andrews. The council could not reduce electricity charges without making the gasworks a heavy burden on the ratepayers.

The present charges for power compared favourably with those in other centres, and at the same time the council had spent considerable 'sums from the electricity prolils on permanent works and unemployment relief. The speaker’s closing remarks were drowned in uproar. Replying to the previous speaker, Mr Lafferty further criticised Mr Bisley’s association with the bill 'scheme, and alleged that lie bad advocated the retention of tlie present electricity charges to complete the footpaths. Mr Lafferty also alleged that Mr Bisley when president of the Chamber of Commerce, had pressed for a revaluation of Frank ton to Increase the rates, but this was emphatically denied by Mr Bisley. Some trenchant criticism of Mr Lafferty’s allegations against members of the council regarding the hill scheme was voiced by Mr F. Findlay, who said Mr Lafferty bad charged him and the Mayor, with corrupt practices. If he could prove that either the speaker or the Mayor did that, they would lose their seats within an hour. The speaker challenged Mr Lafferty to prove his charges and pointed out that the valuation of £SO a foot placed on bis properly In Gollingwood Street, was made by the Government eleven years ago-

Solution to Unemployment. The speaker expressed the view that the removal of Garden Place hill would solve the unemployment problem in Hamilton, and would alleviate traffic congestion, while a wonderful asset would be provided for the borough, which would bring in a good profit. Mr Lafferty in reply said he had not accused Mr Findlay of being dishonest.

“ Why did Mr Lafferty and his colleagues drop the unemployed candidate from their platform?” asked Mr J. Batters, the candidate in question. “We did not drop any candidate who was elected to our platform,” replied Mr Lafferty.

“ That is Incorrect.. I was at a committee meeting at Mr Lafferty’s, and after I left, and when my back was turned, the same committee dropped me,” said Mr Batters. Later, Mr Lafferty and Mr W. A. Curteis, another councillor, had a brisk exchange concerning charges allegedly made by Mr Lafferty that Mr Curteis and others were responsible for the Garden Place Blit going to Wellington without a clause referring the matter to the ratepayers. Mr Curteis gave a lengthy explanation of the Garden Place scheme. “Tin's business regarding Garden Place is merely a smoke screen,” he commented.