The Chronicle LEVIN. SATURDAY, APRIL 28, 1917. "A GLEAN SWEEP."

Levin Daily Chronicle, 28 April 1917, Page 2

The Chronicle LEVIN. SATURDAY, APRIL 28, 1917. "A GLEAN SWEEP."

Levin municipality has secured for it- j •elf a council that is likely to demonstrate its fitness for office. It is repr.s.'iitative of most sections of the ojmn.u.iity and includes men of proved ability in their several callings. Four uf the nine new councillors have had) previous experience on the Levin Borouah Council, though none of them was in tho council latest retired from office. Frankly, we are regretful that not one of the four retiring councillors who ,-tood for re-election was returned. A council composed entirely of new members will require some Hittle time in

which to aquire a working knowledge of the multifarious local activities and ItMJttiHrv it — 1 "gam it more slowly because of the entire absence of councillors who lately have been directing the municipality's affair?. The retinue: councillors Ic erve the thanks of the community; Ciiey had to administer local affairs in abnormal times, and they d'id so with Mich success that the municipality toIny is in the best position financially ihat ever it Gccu]> : ed. The bank overdraft has been reduced almost to vanishing point, and the borough's main ventures—water-supply and gas-supply —so far from being an expense to the ratepayers—return actual profits in. excess of expenditure. In these circumstances a query seems apropos— "Why were all the outgoing-council candidates rejected? Some may quote, as illustrative answer, the case of Socrates (or was it Pericles?), who grew so good and successful that the ancient Athenians banished' him by popular vote for a term of years. Perhaps a similar feeling actuated a proportion of Levn's burgesses, hut we suspect that thoughtlessness—raltlver than admiration of ostracism—was the cause of the seeming ingratitude evidenced in the popular vote oast this week. The defeated candidates to some extent have themselves to blame. They sought no publicity, neither in the press nor on tho public platform; their administration was attacked by inference, and still they gave no public sign of -objection or of endeavor to show tJheir good works. Jsow they are gone, it is well to recall that they "did" do well for the borough and to proffer them thanks, at least, for their gratuitous efforts for their fellows good. Doubtless it is the "gratuitous" aspect of borough councillors'hip that accounts for the average citizen's disinclination to spend money on hire of halls, newspaper advertising, and so forth. This attitude is quite understandable, but the fact remains that an expendiure of thirty or forty shillings on sucih objects—once in a biennial period'—is no great tax upon the average aepirant for municipal honors. If a man aspires to play Hockey or hopscotch for the good of his health he must pay his club subscription. So, too. if for the good of the public health, administration, and morality he aspires to be a director, the need for a little pecuniary expenditure should not deter him from doing his duty. There "were" some issues at stake in the recent elections, but not one candidate of the" seventeen declared himself yea or nay for any one of them ; and burgesses in the bulk voted entirely in the dark. Such a state of .affairs is undesirable in the extreme Before the next municipal elections, but "after" the closing of nominations, it might be well :if the municipality itself convened a meeting of candidates for election, provided the haM, and thus gave opportunity, for a public exposition of the views of aspirants for offi. There is no need for fine speaking capacity in a councillor, but the office certainly does require, a capacity in each councillor to express himself intelligently in public and to- show at least a correct apprehension of the 6tate of bnreugh affairs.