TOWN EDITION. The Daily Telegraph THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1881.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3245, 24 November 1881, Page 2

TOWN EDITION. The Daily Telegraph THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1881.

The most ungracious acknowledgement that could have been paid by the new Council of Hawke's Bay to the ratepayers for the vote of confidence reposed in its old members was the election of Mr J. N. Williams as its chairman. But the refusal to re-elect Mr Sutton to his old position did not come as a surprise. The county was as well prepared for this expression of ingratitude as were the residents of Napier, to whom Mr Sutton's appearance in the streets is as familiar as the post-office. It was fully anticipated that the political contest in the county would be reflected in the Council. It was not supposed for a moment that the supporters of Captain Russell would lose such an opportunity of " puttting Mr Sutton down," and in that way of showing their political bias. The administration of the affairs of the county was of secondary importance in their estimation ; or, rather, perhaps, it was not taken into consideration at all. Several weeks ago it was known to some that the deposition of Mr Sutton was determined upon in the event of tbe re-election of the old members, although the ratepayers were carefully excluded from the confidence of their representatives. We are under the impression that if that confidence had been accorded some of the councillors would not have found themselves in their old seats. We feel certain, moreover, that it was entirely due to Mr Sutton's administration as chairman that the councillors were reelected unopposed. While we quite endorse Mr Bennett's remark that the chairmanship was in noseuseto be considered a permanent appointment, we agree with him in thinking that so long as the position is held with credit to tbe occupier, and with advantage to the county, any change must be regarded as a poor compliment to the one and of doubtful benefit to the other. Mr Tanner's contention that the office, enabling the holder to gain a better insight into the details of county government, should be held by all tbe councilors in succession, and that each one should be ready to take " his turn at the wheel," served well enough in its way, like the ejection of the cuttle fish, to hide the real direction of the movement. The ungracious act we allow was done as graciously it could be, but it was a pitiful pro-

ceeding, in which neither the good of the county nor the dignity of the Council was consulted. The office of chairman is not one of emolument ; on the contrary, it is one that involves the expenditure of i both time and money ; but it is a position of honor, though of honor only when the services required by it are efficiently rendered. The Council acknowledged the efficiency of Mr Sutton's services, and then robbed him of the honor of holding office by virtually pissing a vote of want of confidence in him by electing some one to take his place. Was the honor thought too great for Mr Sutton, or was it coveted by his successor ? We are inclined to the opinion that Mr Sutton was deposed wholly and solely for political reasons. As Chairman of the Council he had aspired to the representation of the county in Parliament in opposition to the choice of the big landowner?. He had said that the position he held entitled him to represent the county ; so his oppopents resolved to deprive him of that position. As in the county so in the Council, tbe big landholders hang together; aud in the united action of Messrs Tanner, Kinross, Williams and Torr (who, we understand, represents Mr Villers) was foreshadowed that which will be done elsewhere unless the electors look after their own interests. We have no hesitation in Baying that the ratepayers of the county will suffer as much as will the electors generally if the whole management of public affairs is to be entirely in the hands ot one class. Mr Williams may make an excellent chairman, but we rather think that he will be unable to devote the necessary time to the work to earn such a distinction. _s a councillor he has not been a constant attendant, and his private affairs engaging his attention at Frimley, Apley, and Mangakuri, all places unconnected by wire with the town, must prove of disadvantage. The difference between an incapable and a capable chairman was illustrated in Mr Tiffen and Mr Sutton. When the latter took office the finance of the county was in confusion ; there was a bank overdraft of £1500, and a liability of £2000, on account of the Ngaruroro bridge, wholly unprovided for. Within the last three 'years the liabilities have teen met; heavy payments have been made on account of extensive public works, and the county is in credit to an amount of some £2000. Mr Sutton retires with honor from the position he has held so worthily, and we are sure that the ratepayers will heartily endorse this opinion.