COUNCIL SAGES AND “ANTI-TWADDLE.”

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1071, 4 March 1913, Page 4

COUNCIL SAGES AND “ANTI-TWADDLE.”

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —I have read with the deepest indignation the tissue of invidious calumnies projected by Anti-Twaddle against Councillors Richmond, Hannah and Chrystall, and I have noted with pleasure the crushing reply contributed by Cr Richmond. I have for long believed that the most regrettable feature of newspaper controversy is the barbed weapon of the anonymous contributor. Such a person rarely has the courage of his convictions, and is often a contentious humbug ; whilst apart from its rare expediency, anonymity is one of the greatest hindrances to controversial education. For it is the refuge of babbling fools and the protection of those who too often have shunned the heat and the burden of the day, whilst they shoot tbeir poisoned darts at some fearless warrior who is perhaps defending a noble cause with the shining sword of truth. In the first place 1 am inclined to believe that “Anti-Twaddle” was actuated by personal bias, otherwise, why does he rake up such ancient history as the “sanitary question,” four weeks after Cr Hannah’s motion has been made the subject of a resolution in the Council ? Was there no other current or topical subject worthy of his attention ? Secondly, why does he contend, or rather assert, that the principle of equal opportunity is too progressive for Foxton. Should not every member of the community have an equal right to make application for Council employment, seeing that he has a fractional responsibility for the payment of such. Personal merit and efficiency of service are the best credentials for an appointment ; but these should not be allowed to entirely submerge the principle of equal opportuity. I fail to see why Mr Gardes should not have an annual appointment: the Council reserving right of renewal subject to a proper consideration of other applications. This means of course that I support the payment of a definite wage for satisfactory service, and not the principle of the lowest tender. Thirdly : by what right does “Anti-Twaddle” presume to vilify men of such high civic worth and public integrity as the Councillors named ? Are not these gentlemen amongst the most conscientious and disinterested on the Council!? If so, then why does “Anti-Twaddle” dare to assert that they are only awaiting an opportunity to confer patronage upon “their poor relations,” or to insinuate that they were actuated by pique because they were denied a pass fo the races ? It is unnecessary to elaborate the case for the defence; no doubt “AntiTwaddle” has a hide like a rhinoceros and a cranium which would be absolutely impervious to anything resembling facts and logic. I realise that his attack may be due to an ulterior motive ; he himself may have an axe to grind, whilst it is even possible that he is striving to discredit those who may represent Labour interests and a progressive policy at the forthcoming Municipal election. With thanks for the privilege of space.—l am, etc,, Jas, G. Graham. Foxton, March 2nd, 1913.