THE MAYORAL ELECTION.
MR. DRANSFIELD AT ADELAIDE-ROAD. Mr. Dransfield addressed a largo meeting of the ratepayers at the Tramway Hotel last night. Mr. Mills occupied the chair. Mr. Dransfield commenced his address by observing that when he first made up his mind to address the ratepayers in this ward he was told the chances were he would not get a hearing. When he spoke at Newtown the other night he had a patient hearing, and he had no doubt he would receive one that night. He would say nothing about himself or his opponent, but would refer briefly to matters pertaining to the city. Ha would admit that Newtown had not had that amount of lookingafter which was now due to it. The district had, however, grown so quickly that it would now be better looked after. Something like 400 additional houses had been built,during the past twelve months. Mr. Dransfield referred to the Te Aro reclamation and to the drainage scheme. He then explained why the hulk Camille had been leased. He said that the hulk had been chartered by the Corporation from Captain Stafford for £2 per week for six months. It had been rumored that the price paid was £6OO a year. This of course was all nonsense. The candidate then stated that it had been rumored that he supplied the timber for the wharf. Mr. Dransfield, however, explained that when he was not Mayor or a member of tha Council, but merely a private person in business, the contractor, Mr. MoKirdy, asked him what he could supply the timber for. Several unimportant questions were asked and answered. Mr. Quinn proposed, and Mr. Kebbell seconded, that Mr. Dransfield was a fit and proper person to represent the city as Mayor. Mr. Tanner moved, as an amendment, and Mr. Henderson seconded, that Mr. Hutchison was a fit and proper person to represent the city as Mayor. - • On the amendment being put it was declared carried, A vote of thanks to the chairman closed the meeting.
MR. HUTCHISON BEFORE THE ELECTORS. Mi*. Hutchison’s meeting was held at the Caledonian Hotel last night. It was very fully attended. Mr. Hutchison repeated his objections to the lengthening of the hours of labor oh the wharf. The longer hours might continue, but the extra pay would probably cease. As to the letters referred to by Mr, Dransfield, he (Mr. Hutchison) had never written a letter as Mayor of which a copy could not be had. (A Voice : Say no more, Mr. Hutchison; you’re going to be elected, say no more about it. We’re going to elect you.) As to bringing forward motions as Mayor, he could not get persons to bring forward some motions, so he brought them forward himself, and would do so again if occasion arose. As to the O’Connor petition question, he had written the document in order that the man might have his case stated, and fairly put before the public. Referring to Mr, Dransfield’s meeting, he had been unable to find any report of it in the morning papers, but he must refer to it because of a story that had been told about him, which he considered in bad taste, especially at an aristocratic meeting. As to the Camille business, he thought a hulk for a kerosene store ought to have been advertised for. He assured the meeting that he had urged forward the Reclaimed Land Bill to the best of his ability. About the banquets, there had been meetings of municipal delegates annually, and he had done his best to entertain the visitors. He had only invited delegates, and his banquet came to only half the cost of Hr. Dransfield’s dinner. It had been duly sanctioned by the Council. The payment out of the rates was not then considered illegal, though it had since been declared so, through a decision come to about tbe cost of a banquet at Sunderland. The payment of £157 odd, extra salary to'the Mayor, was illegally made, and the . vote was therefore still illegal. A question was .put asking if Mr. Hutchison was in favor of one vote for one man only ? Mr. Hutchison replied that he had always favored single voting, and objected to plural • voting. The meeting concluded with a unanimous vote of confidence in Mr. Hutchison as the most suitable candidate to act as Mayor for the city of Wellington. THB TOLLING BOOTH QUESTION. The following correspondence has taken place od this subject i—■Wellington, November 20,1878. Dear Sir,—We have been instructed by Messrs. T. W. Young, Hunt, O'Neill, and others, electors entitled to vote at the coming election of a Mayor for this city, to bring under your notice formally and timeously the necessity that exists for providing an adequate number of polling booths, so as to insure that the electors shall have ample facilities for recording thoir votes. The number of electors amounts, wo understand, to something like 3000, and it is certain that such a number of elec.ors cannot possibly have an opportunity of recording their votes unless there are two or three polling booths provided in convenient situations. There is an impression or understanding abroad that only one polling booth is to be provided, aud wo desire therefore to bring more especially under your notice the necessity for providing more. Will you bo good enough, for the satisfaction of many persons concerned, to let us know what booths you purpose to have, and whore.— We are, &c., SErvwniairr and Stout. Wellington, November 21,1871. Gentlemen,—l beg to inform you, in reply to your letter of yesterday’s date, that it is my intention strictly to adhere to the law in all matters connected with the coming election.—l have, &c., J. Ames. The 39th section of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1876, contains the following provision : “At any election of a mayor or auditors each burgess shall have only one vote, and there shall be only one polling place, at some central part of the borough.” (Mayoral Election.) Wellington, 21st November, 1878. Dear Sir,—Wo luve received your letter of this date, and regret that you should have given ua such au unsatisfactory reply on a matter which is regarded by a very largo part of this community as of great importance. Wo only last night found that you have by advertisement intimated that there is to bo just one polling-booth, viz., the side-room. Odd Fellows’ Hall, Grey-street; and we now presume, from the tenor of your letter, that there is only to ho the one polling-booth, because the advertisement is repeated in the papers this morning. Wo again repeat that the one polling-booth is quite inadequate accommodation, and that in all probability, in consequence of the limited accommodation, tho poll will bo badly conducted, from excessive crowding. If such an unfortunate result should happen, our clients will hold you responsible ; and will found upon this letter, in any judicial proceedings winch may bo rendered necessary.—Wo are, yours faithfully, Seitwwqut and Stout, James Ames, Esq. In regard to the above correspondence, we draw attention to the 39th section of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1876, quoted above. In tho Amendment Act of 1877 and in the Act passed ‘ last session no alteration in the law respecting the polling-booths has been made ; consequently only one pollingbooth can be legally instituted. This is not optional on the part of the authorities, but inoperative. At the conference of delegates the existing law was accepted, and no amendment was proposed by then}.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM18781122.2.14
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5509, 22 November 1878, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,248THE MAYORAL ELECTION. New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5509, 22 November 1878, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.