WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 20 November 1929, Page 2

WELLINGTON TOPICS

Mil AVILFORD’S SUCCESSOR.

FOUR CANDIDATES IN FIELD

(Special Correspondent.)

WELLINGTON, .November 18, All the 'parties' in the House of Representatives, with the exception of the Country Parity, in which ‘Mr Rushworth, the member for Bay of Islands,, stands alone, are now, - represented in the contest for the Hutt seat, from which the Hon. T. M. Wilford is retiring in order to take up the High Commissionership.. Mr James Kerr has. been selected v as the Government candidate, Mr Harold Johnston as the Reform candidate, Mr Walter Nash as Labour candidate and Mr H. D. Bennett, as the Independent candidate. Mr Kerr, the least known of the four candidates, is the proprietor and editor of the “Hutt and Petone Chronicle,” and is not likely to hold the big vote Mr Wilford has consistently polled. On the face of things it looks as if the Government would have been well advised had it left Mr Nash to win the seat for Labour. Mr Nash secured 5,978 votes' at the general election last year, and with Mr Wilford’s gOO]) votes released it is not unlikely that a substantial number of them will go Labour’s way.

; THE: CANDIDATES. Mr Kerr has moved well abreast of the politics of the day and has assisted materially in holding the Hutt seat for Mr Wilford and his party, but, like many another - good journalist, he has not kept himself sufficiently in the public eye to be helped by a rush election. Mr Harold Johnston, a member of a very old Wellington family, is in his fifth-fourth year without having previously meddled at all prominently with politics; but. an early education ajj; Wanganui College and a finishing course at Oxford have left him with the attractive personality of a graduate ; of these institutions. He is a Reformer,, one may suspect, rather by association than by conviction and by and by. may be found attaching himself to a more virile party. Mr meanwhile need not be taken into acv count.' He scarcely can aspire to occupying' ; the positions Mr WilkinsQfl. and Mr Poison already occupy in tjie House. Mr Nash from every viewpoint appears to have a distinct advantage over all'his •.opponents. .

THEIR CHRISTMAS BOX. Protests, spoken and printed, still are bMng made - against the “Christmas Box ” of £IOO apiece awarded by the, members of the House of Representatives to themselves at the conclusion of the recent session of Parliament. The mostystriking of these made public during the last day or two comes from the New .i;Z§aland Educational Institute which reminds the public that “ an application from the headmsters in the primary,' schools for increases in salary, affid endorsed by practically every member of the Legislature, promised some years, ago, ,was refused on the grounds that there were no funds available. The teaching profession, , with, the public service, is concerned with the justice of the restoration of the ‘ cuts.’ ” The Educational Institute feels very strong-, ly, so it says, that its claim on behalf of the headmasters ought now to receive fresh consideration even if the restoration of the cut is not possible. The Acting Prime Minister when seen to-day had nothing to say on the matter.

MORE CLAIMANTS. The statement made by the Hon. T. K. Sidey, the Attorney-General, to tnt effect that the bonus to members of the otfier Chamber might he justified by the costliness of the November election, has encouraged some of the defeated candidates on that occasion to put forlvard claims for compensation. They maintain, not illogieally, that they expended as much as the successful candidates did, and therefore should be recompensed at least on the same scale, Their expenditure, they urge, was abgt* lutely money out of pocket which could not be.in any way recovered, while, the expenditure of the successful candidates was simply an investment from ;whitTi they receive for three years a substantial return. Neither the AttorneyGeneral nor any other member of the Cabinet has yet challenged'this contention and it is difficult to see how it is to be refuted. At the general election all the candidates stood on the same footing with a limitation of expenditure —which, by the way, was frequently disregarded—and it surely was illogical, even unfair,, to reimburse tne candidates that succeeded and ignore those that failed.