The River Trust Election.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18895, 10 January 1927, Page 8

The River Trust Election.

The ratepayers of Christchurch may find some difficulty in choosing between the eight candidates who offer themselves for election to the four seats allotted to the Christchurch district on "the Waimakariri River Trust. The situation is in many ways most unsatisfactory. To begin with, when the new Trust is elected there will remain two grave defects' in the constitution of the Trust: the inadequate representation of Christchurch, which will supply the bulk of the money for the Trust's operations; and the continued insistence of the Government upon some voice in a public work for which it does not undertake any continuing finanoial responsibility. That these problems should still remain is the fault of the old Trust and of the Government, who managed to have the Act of last session passed without proper reference to the local interests affected. The new Trust will, of course, be a great improvement, so far as its constitution is concerned, upon the expired Trust which endeavoured to rush the ratepayers into voting for a £200,000 scheme [it would have cost much more] as the only means of averting an " imminent" danger to the City. Another unsatis-

j factory feature of the present position | is that opinions dili'er widdv coneernI mg the best method of controlling the j river, and that the official plan has not j been supported by clear, logical, and j consistent arguments by the responsible I officials. In the letter we print to-day Mr H. M. Chrystall points out some striking—and, to those who dislike plans not based on clear thinking, some disturbing—inconsistencies in the statements of the engineers behind the Trust's plan. Everyone desires I that a sound sc-hem? of control should ibe established., but nobody can be I really happy over (lie oSciai proposals, not even (hose who are uncritical sup- | porters of it. Three of the candidates j who are seeking election are standing as supporters of the old Trust's,scheme ! and the old Trust's methods and ideas ' —Messrs Sullivan. Winsor. and Dalley: i and it ought to be obvious that these | three candidates at any rate can ad- ! vantageously be excluded from the new I Trust. Them remain the four candidates of the Citizens' Association and, Mr Georjre Gould, who stands as an independent candidate. Mr Gould took a part last year in opposing the old Trust's plan, and contributed largely to the defeat of its proposals. He has to some extent modified his views, but not so far as concerns the essential -rounds of opposition to the official scheme. The Citizens' Association has nominated Sir Francis Boys, and Messrs llesher. F. "W. Freeman, and A. Manhire. The first three of these candidates are fully in accord with the policy which The Press thought and still thinks the right one, but Mr Manhire's position is a little anomalous. He was the most active of the members of the old Trust in its scare campaign, and although it was on his motion that the Trust, after its defeat last autumn, recognised and admitted our demand for a new Trust, he must take his share-of responsibility for the circumstances under which last year's Act was suddenly hurried past the public. Since the first duty of the electors is to protect the ratepayers of the City against the adoption of an unnecessarily costly and possibly inadequate plan—we direct special attention to Mr Leonard Clark's letter in this issue—they will do best to vote for Sir Francis Boys, Mr Flesher, and Mr Freeman, and to consider, then, whether they should support Mr Manhire or Mr Gould. Mr Gould has shown, what we are afraid cannot be urged in Mr Manhire's behalf, that he is on the side- of caution and full enquiry before action. Mr Manhire has been too sturdy a champion of the old Trust's methods and too little a critic of the Government officials' meddling with our river problem, to be a member quite agreeable to the Christchurch ratepayers.