CITY MAYORALTY

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 44, 16 November 1926, Page 8

CITY MAYORALTY

STATEMENT BY CIVIC LEAGUE WHY MR. TROUP WAS CHOSEN A statement has been issued by tnc Civic League in reference to the Mayoral election. The main portions of it follow:— We do not mean to discuss the league’s action in choosing Councillor G. A. Troup as its candidate for the office of Mayor, .livery elector Has a right to choose wham he likes, and the league is only exercising the same right, as it is properly entitled to do. It is an impertinence on the part of a section of those supporting the Mayor, Mr. Norwood, to infer that the act of endorsing anyone else is au offence, and to seek to dictate to other citizens whom they should choose. . . . The league has chosen its candidate, aud will stand by him right through. At the same time Mr. Troup is more than the league’s candidate..... All that the Civic League has done in asking him to stand is to pick the man who is wanted by a great body of die electors. He is in truth a citizens’ candidate, and the league feels fully confident that this will be amply demonstrated when the election takes place. . . . To raise questions of the Mayor’s presumed right to a four-year term (not a right at all); the assumed wickedness of the Civic League in transacting its business in its own way, and not as directed by those opposed, and other quibbles, is to raise false issues. These have nothing whatever to do with Councillor Troup's merit as a candidate. Mr. Norwood, in answering a deputation, said he wished to be fair to the Civic Leapie, and he acknowledged that the league’s president and secretary had consulted him before any candidate was chosen. That, whilst true, was only part, and the Mayor should have told the full truth about it. Here are the facts: Before Mr. Norwood went to Sydney about three months ago, he was first waited on by the league’s officer, under instruction, and asked if he desired to seek another term of office. He replied that he could not then say, but would go into the matter, and be in a position to answer after he returned. On his return from Sydney the league waited several weeks aud got no reply. The president and secretary were then instructed to consult the Mayor again. This the officers did, and could ■receive no definite assurance one way or another... With consultations extending over two months it is ridiculous to even suggest that the league did not treat the Mayor with the fullest courtesy. It is entirely without warrant for Mr. Norwood to suggest that the league, or its officers, had some ulterior motive in waiting on him. This is simply not true, and the Mayor had no right to make such a statement. The violent explosion of Councillor H. D. Bennett in the way of attack on the Civic League has not surprised the league officers. He made a similar attack on the league two years ago, and it still lives. ... On this occasion he has presumed too far, and his violent declaration of war on the Civic League will render him ridiculous. Councillor H. D. Bennett had no authority to speak as he did in commital of the councillors. We know of nine councillors who were never consulted before that tirade was delivered. We do not suppose the three Labour Party men were approached. That is 12 out of 15— but it is doubtful if anyone was consulted. . ■ > . There was no candidate in the field when Councillor G. A. Troup was chosen. The Civic League’s officers had the impression that Mr. Norwood did not intend to stand. Since then the Mayor has told the public that he had not intended to stand. Apparently he has taken pique because the Civic League dared to choose someone else, and for that purely personal reason he is creating a conflict. The Civic League considers that the city comes before any person, and it recommends Councillor Troup solely because it thinks he best suits the requirements.