THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 1881. THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2307, 26 August 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 1881. THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION.

If we are to take the manifesto of the gentlemen signing the request to Mr. Jenkins to withdraw from his candidature to be a true exposition of the points to be raised at the election for the North-east ward, the opposition to Mr. Hulbert has even less reason than at first appeared to be the case. We suppose that the gentlemen referred to had the authority of Mr. Manning to say that the point at issue between Mr. Hulbert and himself was the fact that some of the representatives happen to hold business premises in close proximity to each other in the city. Whilst it is satisfactory to have clearly brought out some tangible reason for the bringing forward of Mr. Manning, and the attempt to oust a representative who has served the ratepayers well, we fail to see one iota of substantiality in them. If these are the only grounds upon which Mr. Manning intends to rest his claims to bo elected, then, indeed, ho has a very bad case. Lot us just look at the part of the manifesto to which wo refer, and so as to avoid mistakes or the appearance of attempt to put color on it, we will quotethe very words. The gentlemen signing the request for the retirement of Mr. Jenkins deliver themselves as follows : To E. Jenkins, Esq.—Dear Sir, —We, the undersigned ratepayers and electors of the South-east ward in the city of Christchurch, desire to draw your attention to the similarity which exists in the leading object of the candidature of Mr S. Manning and yourself, viz , the desire of the electors to carry out the ward system as originally designed, by electing the members from various parts of the ward, instead of electing them from one favored spot, as is the case at present, and thereby securing a more efficient and satisfactory supervision of the out-lying parts of theward and their requirements than is otherwise attainable.

The ground, therefore, for opposing Mr. Hulbert is simply what we have stated. Not one tittle of complaint as to any neglect, or the interests of the ward he represents, or the city in general, nor complaint of want of zeal or efficiency, which would have been perfectly good' grounds for requesting the citizens to refuse to re-elect him. When we come to examine more closely this cry of the monopoly of election by a few residing in one spot the shallowness and absurdity of it becomes more apparent. It may be, and doubtless is, true that a large majority of the representatives in the Council have their business premises in one part of the city. But we desire to point out that it is their business premises only. Their residences, and therefore their main interests, are in very divergent directions, and parts of the ward. Beyond this, the ratepayers must not forget this fact, that the works in the city are now very nearly, if not altogether, complete. The side channelling, the asphalting, &0., have all been carried out in the city proper, where these places of, business are. Hence, if every mam in the Council had business premises in the small space provided by the Triangle,, the interests of the outside parts of the wards would not suffer, because there is no more work to be done in the city. Besides, the occupation of one’s business premises is not so continuous as the-dwelling-house, and, apart from the fact that of course the representative would do his best for the ward, it would only be reasonable to suppose, putting it on the low standard of self-interest, that he would take care of the portion of the ward in which his residence was situate. Thus the great point made by Mr. Frederick Jones and the other gentlemen falls entirely to the ground. In fact, it is a very clumsy contrivance on the part of the supporters of Mr. Manning to draw a red herring aceross the scent. Finding that they cannot allege any breach of duty against the present member they raise up a phantom, objection, which is just sufficiently substantial to deceive for a moment those who do not, perhaps, scrutinise the matter closely. It is another instance of the instructions given by an attorney to a counsel engaged in a very doubtful suit, viz,:— ‘‘ No case; abuse the other side.” We should be perfectly willing to discuss any objections to the re election of Cr. Hulbert of a tangible nature, because it is all important that the ratepayers of the South-east ward should be efficiently represented. But we fail to see any such objection. None has been made, and except the shadowy one to which wo have referred, not a word but of commendation as to the way in which Cr. Hulbert has discharged his duties has ever been heard. Even had Cr. Hulbert done nothing during his career than brought forward the scheme of re-organi-sation to which we have already referred, he would have done good service to the city. We do not think that the ratepayers will be misled by such a transparent device as that now put forward by Mr. Manning’s supporters, but will, in view of faithful service rendered, once more return their present representative. We do not for one moment wish to say a word disparagingly of Mr. Manning’s abilities or fitness for the post of a city councillor. No one would be more welcome from his sound common sense and business aptitude. But while this is so we cannot see why Mr. Hulbert should be ousted to make room for Mr. Manning, who is an untried man. We deny most emphatically the issue endeavoured to be raised, that the interests of the city and the outlying portions of the wards are inimical. No such a conflict has arisen, and the interests of each are clearly identical. Hence it matters not whether a representivo has business premises in the upper or lower part of High street so long as he resides in the ward. Mr. Hulbert, in the matter of residence, is quite as much interested in the outlying portions of the ward as Mr. Manning, so that this does not apply. Apart from the fallacy of the statement we would point out that these gentlemen in their zeal to serve their friend have, unintentionally perhaps, endeavored to sow the seeds of dissension between what may bo called the city and suburban portions of the wards. This, we think, is to be deplored, and wo hope that during the contest such abortive attemps as chose will not be repeated.