The River Trust Election.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18898, 13 January 1927, Page 8

The River Trust Election.

Some of those who interested themselves in the Itiver Trust election as supporters of the policy and methods of the defunct Trust are taking rather badly the emphatic approval given by the City ratepayers to the policy of Tub Press. One of the evening papers, imagining that the bare majority in favour of the old Trust at the poll of last autumn was ground solid enough to bear any weight, put all its money, as it were, on Mr Sullivan and his colleagues. In its disappointment it has adopted what looks very like the arithmetic one would expect from Mr Sullivan and the admirers of the old Trust, for it says that "over ten "thousand ratepayers" voted for the old Trust's policy, that "10,380 rate- " payers " so voted while " 9761 rate- " payers " voted on the other side, and that " rather more than twenty thous- " and property-owners in the Trust's "area of jurisdiction went to the "poll." As a matter of. fact only between 6000 and 7000 ratepayers voted—perhaps even less than 0000. Wliat happened was that the. paper referred to counted up all the votes for all the candidates,-forgetting, or perhaps even not knowing, that every voter in the City area would vote for four candidates. This would not be worth mentioning were it not an illustration of tho shallow and careless thinking that was the foundation of the old Trust's*'policy and of the support it received from various people. Mr A\ rinsor, one of the defeated candidates, lakes another and slightly less silly view of tho-result. In a letter which we print to-day lie congratulates The Pbess on its success in returning membeys who can be relied upon to carry out that "go-slow," Conservative and cautious policy winch he imputes to us. This reproach we can easily endure, but it is perhaps worth while noticing Mr Yvinsor's suggestion that the City representatives on the Trust were " elected by a few of tho larger City " ratepayers." The largest City ratepayer had only three voting papers given to him at his polling booth, and the defeat of the ticket to which Mr AVinsor was attached was so emphatic that if all the "plural voters"—on both sides, for the old Trust's policy was supported by some large ratepayers—had been restricted to ;. single vote the result would have been the same. For the present there is little more that needs to be said concerning the election. But one remark may be added. The voting at the election guarantees that no loan proposal will be carried which has not the best possible recommendations from the financial and engineering standpoints. It bears out also our opinion, expressed on various occasions during and since the April poll, that every day of discission, every fresh airing the question received in The Prf.ss, would strengthen public opinion in favour of a revision of policy. That revision i? now,: fortunatelr, assured.

The Tunnel. j Nobody knows whether the announce- ! ment made on anotlier part of this page that the Railway Deportment is ; calling for tender- tor the eleetnlication of the Lyttelton tunnel is good ; news or bad. Tt is not pleasant to . think that the Department has finally ! refused to investigate an alternative to electrification, put forward by com- ■ petent engineers, and supported by an , impressive body of evidence from experts in other eountrie.-; but it doe* not necessarily follow that (lie. community will have (o pay Lor this refusal. The Port and City Commiitee have no doubt about it; many who are not members or supporters of the Com- | niittee strongly suspect that the De- : partment has blundered; but no one can prove that jt has, and in (he absence of proof on one side or the other I here is nothing' to do but to hope thai it will be found to have more wit than ils methods suggest. For there was of course no reason why it should not have made some furlher eiif|itiries, and even some (rials, before beginning a work which might easily prove to be out-of-date before it is completed, and (he fact that, it has refused to do what common prudence so clearly seemed to demand makes it very difficult to believe that ils wisdom in other respects is above suspicion. But (he most imporlant point is the fact that electrification, whatever it does for ns at whatever price, will not do away with the necessity for a tunnel road. II may or may not provide, in spite of its great cost, the best present way of escape from conditions that have been a. scandal for very many years. It cannot possibly do much more than that. Indeed, if, seems quite certain that the Port and City Committee are right in saying that the Department definite decision to go on with electrification makes (he funnel road more necessary thais-ever. For it strengthens the Department's hold on the waterfront without adding much, if anything, to its capacity for clearing goods; and it a|so, of course, if we may assume that passengers in a couple of years will be able to travel comfortably, leaves the battle for efficiency to be carried on in future by the business community only.