CIVIC INDIFFERENCE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 1698, 14 April 1917, Page 3

CIVIC INDIFFERENCE.

[To the Editor.]

Sir. —Do you not think your remarks in your leading article of Thursday last were a little out of hounds? It was quite the impression among the residents here that Messrs Ilennessy and Jcnks would seek re-election, and as they were most suitable members, no opposition would have been made to their re-election. A local in your Thursday’s issue explains why Mr Jcnks missed the nomination. Now, with regard to the election of the present Mayor, your statement is quite in error. Mr Fraser was not “pushed’’ into office but, willingly acceded to a very strongly expressed wish that he should place his well-known services at the disposal of the borough. Mr Fraser certainly stated that lie did not seek the oliiee, hut was willing to contest the election if if was the desire of the ratepayers that he should do so, and if his supporters were willing to do (lie work necessary to win (he election. This (hey were willing to do with very happy results. Nor was Mr Fraser “allowed” to defeat the opposition. Tiie opponent, and those who supported him; assisted by yourself, sir, worked very hard. Nor can I allow your inference that the present Mayor has not displayed enthusiasm, nor evinced any desire to “push the borough out of the rut” go unchallenged. I can assure you, sir, that quite a number of residents are keenly interested in municipal affair.-;, hut unfortunately have not sufficient time at their disposal to properly carry out the work of the borough, or (heir private interests may clash with public affairs if they accepted the positions of councillors. I think you will also agree Unit a, substantial reason why more do not seek municipal honours is a disinclination to he subjected to the pin-pricks which arc very often, from certain directions, levelled at public men who do their hcsl for the town. —Yours, clc., A. .1. KEL LOW. [WTielher our remarks arc out of hounds is, of course, a matter of opinion, if we thought so it is self-evident they would not have been expressed. As Ihe Mayor's chief henchman, will Mr Kellow say that Mr Fraser offered his services voluntarily? Mr Fraser’s own statements to the deputation in 1915 and subsequently re-iterated, are a sufficient answer. Civic indifference was responsible for the defeat of Mr Fraser's opponent for the Mayoralty, Will Mr Kellow specify what Mr Fraser has done during his term of office outside the ordinary routine? Mr Kellow i> taking himself rather too seriously when he poses as the mouthpiece of local citizens. We recommend .Mr Kellow to again read the article he seel;.-- to criticise, and to also look a little beyond his nose. —Ed.M.j