THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1881. THE MAYORAL ELECTION.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2351, 15 October 1881, Page 3

THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1881. THE MAYORAL ELECTION.

It is with great regret that we notice the circulation in the city of a requisition asking the Mayor to call a public meeting, at which the candidates for the civic chair can make known their views. Not that wo aro in any way opposed to the freeist and fullest discussion of any subjects of public importance, but, to our mind, there are many and very serious objections to it. First, then, the projectors of meetings of this kind usually get them up for the purpose of having a little cheap amusement at the expense of the ratepayers and the candidates. This wo shrewdly suspect is at the bottom of the present requisition, and should at once be put a stop to. It is a well-known fact that numbers of good men, who would be of infinite service to their fellow citizen in the Municipal Council, or more widely extended sphere of the Assembly, are deterred from so doing because they will not stand on a platform as a mark and a butt for every one who chooses to shoot at them. This, to our mind, is a fatal objection to the course now proposed with regard to the Mayoralty. It has been a matter of extreme difficulty to get gentlemen to offer themselves, and if this hadgery and baiting at meetings is allowed to come into vogue the difficulty will be increased tenfold. Again, it has never yet been the custom in Christchurch to request the candidates for the Mayoralty to address a meeting. The Mayor, after all, is, so far as the work of the Council is concerned, merely chairman of that body, and it is in the exercise of what may be called social functions, rather than deliberative, that the fitness or otherwise of the Mayor is displayed. Now, the projectors of this meeting say that they wish to know the views of the candidates upon two questions, and, so far as wo can learn, upon two only. These are the proposed water aupply scheme and the dismissal of the Town Clerk. As to the first, wo cannot aeo that there should bo any controversy on the question. It is manifestly necessary that Christchurch should ho furnished with a more efficient water system, particularly as regards fire extinction. Therefore, this point requires no profession of faith from either candidate. The scheme proposed seems about the most feasible yet propounded, and would, wo think, be accepted by the ratepayers. Really, however, even supposing this to be a burning question, the Mayor has no more power than one of the Councillors. Indeed, from his position ho cannot do what Councillors can—propose resolutions. Hence, even supposing the gentlemen now before the ratepayers held strong views on this point, either one way or the other, jt would not bo a very great matter.

Now, as to the second point, the answer is plain and straightforward. Such a question could not, for one moment, bo entertained by any candidate for the Mayoral chair. Ho must go there as chairman, without any bias or prejudice upon such a point as the dismissal or retention of an officer. He cannot, for one moment, be asked until all the facts and all the evidence on both sides is before him. Tet the gentlemen who are getting up this requisition would have the candidates either say they would go in pledged to oust Mr. Haskins or that they would not. This is decidedly and emphatically wrong. No one holds stronger opinions on the subject of the necessity of a change in the office of Town Clerk than we do. At the same time it would be most unfair

and unjust towards that officer to extract from the persons—one of whom is to bo his superior—a pledge that (before hearing what he has to say) he will devote his energies to removing him from office. This, we think, must be apparent to every one. Thus, apart from the objection to which we attach most weight—viz., that such meetings have a decided tendency to prevent really good men coming forward for these positions, the project has no one thing in it to recommend it to the ratepayers. As we have shown the two ostensible reasons are utterly unfounded. We therefore trust that the ratepayers will, as many have already done, decline to sign the requisition, as it is quite time that this system of free amusement for the people was done away with as harmful to the best interests of the citizens.