THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1882. “ONCE MORE TO THE BREACH.”

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2659, 14 October 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1882. “ONCE MORE TO THE BREACH.”

Wese it not for the grossly untrue statements contained in the letters appearing in our Gloucester street contemporaries with reference to the Mayoralty, they would only afford amusement. But not alone a disregard of the truth, hut hitter animus against a gentleman who has served the oilzens well is rather beyond a joke. Indeed, it is matter-for surprise that a journal claiming to possess the east shred of respectability should have I inserted such a letter as that appearing in the “ Star ” last evening over the ■ignatnre of “ Ratepayer.” It is the same old story, although now, to still further disguise “ Biscator,” a different style ia

the cloven foot is plainl visiMo, and it needs but little looking’ beneath the enrfaoa to discover the almost elected and would-be walk-over candidate for the Mayoralty. The delicate compliment paid to the journal for reprinting the first of the series from its grandmother, and the self-praise bestowed on that production, is to use the writer’s own word “ refreshing.” Of course there is the usual lament that modest (?) mqrit Is allowed to remain in obscurity without a requisition being presented, and a hope is expressed that one will shortly TnaV* its appearance in Colombo street. Well, as wa have before said, if there is any portion of the community who feel that they would like to see a change made, way do they not bring out their man, and let the fight be fought fairly and openly. To falsely attack a public nun who has zealously devoted his time and his means for the benefit of the city is unfair, not to say cowardly. The field is open to aIL There is no vested right at all in it, and we should welcome the advent of an opponent to the present Mayor, feeling assured that the verdict on the polling day would be such as to give the most emphatic denial to the paltry and petty Bustlings of “ Piscator, ’’ “ Ratepayer,”’ &c. The latter correspondent asks what his Worship has done during his present term of office ? The old proverb says, “None so blind as those who will not see,” but for his information we will give a few facts. For the first time in the municipal history of Christchurch we have a Mayor who transacts the business of tbe office in person, and wbo, as being responsible to the citizens, personally supervises the details of the work of the city. All correspondence is submitted to and answers thereto dictated by him. Daring the rale of Mr. Ruddenklau mom system and harmonious working of the whole staff has been introduced. No Mayor that we have yet had has filled the chair at the meetings with such tact and complete control as Mr. Ruddenklau. The manner in which he has sustained the dignity of his office, the kindly nnobtrnsive way in which both Mrs. Ruddenklau and himeelf have dispensed help ; to many in Christchurch is well known to a large number of citizens who, we feel ‘ sure, will agree with ns in condemning heartily such mean and un-English tactics as appear to be adopted by a small and discontented clique. A fair field and no favor, and one understands how to 1 meet an adversary, bat not when anony--1 mons attacks are made covertly and with malice. If Mr. “ Piscator,” “ Ratepayer,” or whatever name oat of his numerous aliases he may choose to be called, has the courage of his opinions, let him start a requisition for a candidate against the present Mayor, and if, as he says, Mr. Ruddenklau is so unpopular, then bis 1 task will be easy. The disappointment and chagrin caused by the reconsideration of the determination of the Mayor to retire no doubt still rankles in the breasts of some expectant candidates. If, however, all they have advanced, under the guise of a non de plume, is true, there is quite as good a chance as when the field was (apparently) open for an inexpensive walk-over election. Surely a “ popular” man, with the additional claim of long service and undoubted fitness for the office, can with ease defeat one of -whom so high an authority as “ Piscator,” “ Ratepayer,” Ac., states—with all the air , of Sir Oracle —“I consider”—mark the modesty of the man—■“ the Mayor baa been very unpopular.” In conclusion, we , cannot but express regret that any port of the Press of Christchurch should have been found willing to aid and assist in disseminating such a spiteful, untrue, and undeserved attack upon a gentleman , who has filled the office of Mayor in a I way entitling him to the utmost credit, i and who has always been a good citizen. • The letter we have been commenting on ( is one which, we venture to say, from its . bad taste and evident animus, wonld have I never seen tbe light in a respectably i conducted journal. Wo have differed * with the Mayor on one or two points in municipal affairs, more especially , with regard to the matter of the retention of the Exhibition site. No ■ man is free from mistakes —and wa ate , quite willing to admit that his Worship has made some—but these are far and t away eclipsed by the zeal, assiduity, and ■ rare common sense which has characterised Mr. Ruddenklau during his year . of office. Wa trust that there will be an l end to these spiteful attacks. If there is any good man willing and anxious to try his fortune in a contest as supporting the views held by “ Piscator and Go.” let him boldly stand forth, and wa hope the best man will win.