WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 13 October 1932, Page 4

WELLINGTON TOPICS

BEHIND THE SCENES. HONOURS AND ANNUITIES. (Special Correspondent). \ WELLINGTON, October 11. Two paragraphs of more than passing : interest which may have escaped ... the attention of the casual reader, appeared in th e daily papers last week, the more prominent of the two implying that several additional appointments may be made to the attenuated . Leg slative 'Council in tn© near future', and the other :■ enouncing that the “spec’aJ annuities” granted by the Government this year will cost the taxpayers no ]e.ss than £4,(80. Four gentlemen are mentioned as likely to be promoted to thp Upper Chamber, Mr J. M. Dickson, who held the Chalmers seat from 1914 to 1928 ; Mr T. W. .Rhodes, who filled the Thames seat from 1911 to 1928; Sir James Gunsca, who has failed in several attempts, to reach the House from an Auckland seat, and Mr H. F. Johnston, K.C., who a vigorous attempt to secure the Hutt seat when Sir Thomas Wilford laid it down to fall into the hands of a Labour cundidate. PARTY TACTICS. , , It may b 0 said without any reflection upon those immediately concerned that the withdrawal of Mr Rhode's fromyth-e (Thames seat in 1928- was due to the . belief of the party leaders that a stronger candidate at the moment ; was needed. Their opinion'was justified by the result of the po)L /the Reform >c au * - didate, in a three, p'arty contest,' 1 coming out of the fray with a-good m. gin; luit the -unexpected debacle- of the Reform Party/ left if unable •' to make any such recompense as it had anticipated to Mr .'Rhodes. o -Mr Dickson was not exactly, in the ■same position as was .Mr Rhodes, having gone to the poll in 1928 without placing himself wholeheartedly in the hands of the Reform organisation, and consequently is not so fully entitled : to consideration -as .is his mpr.e patient colleague in '(adversity. As for - Sir James Gurspn >and Mr Johnston, .' if there .are .to be additional councilors, they are of the order to be considered. AFTER MANY YEARS. As for the “special .annuities” granted by the thW : ' yea*,-■ amounting .to the- substantial , sum of £4,780,. only fourteen, reaching £1503 in ally have gone-...t0; ex-members:- ofiUa Lr^islat-iw.Council, the House pf (Representatives- and--their wives. No r.'.-n'pibei- of the- Leg'slative Council received assistance . from the State(during the last financial' year,. but ' two. . widows of. deceased • members of the > nominated chamber- were relieved.:-Id the same period sk ex-lttembers 'ofythe House and six wiveg-of deceased mambtuis were similarly wcwmved, One of the recipients of assistance wr@ a sturdy soul who sat in the House so long ago as the early eighties of- last kf. century, with such 'figures as Gi’ e yi Atkinson, Ballance, Feddon, Rolleston, William ’ Russell, ■ Vogel, Mitche.lson and other big men who seem, according to the authorities, to overshadow even the front rankers amo-ng the active politicians of the present day. Maybe, however, this is but the critics’ delusion. v THE FAMILY SHARE. No one will gi'udge the widows of the deceased members pf the House or the Council the relief that has come their way, whether it be of the value of £"o or £l2O for-the year. Members of Parliament who are so fond of preaching thrift and economy to the public at large, however, very well might be more prone to the practice of that virtue within their own sphere. There may be good reasons why they should not wish to reduce the number cf members of the elected chamber from eighty to forty or fifty. Each of them would* be fearful lest , he should be Included in the superfluous throng. ' Already a majority has voted for the extension of the life of the present Parliament from three years to four, without giving the public tat large the’sliglitest indication of this move until-it had fortified itself behind a coalition Government that assures it of indefinite security.