The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER-16, 1926. BLACK, OR WHITE, OR PIEBALD

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12605, 16 November 1926, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER-16, 1926. BLACK, OR WHITE, OR PIEBALD

Elsewhere in this issue appears the gist of the Civic League’s defence of its action in rushing to nominate Councillor Troup for the Mayoralty. There are three outstanding points in the statement:— (1) All that the Civic League has done in asking him [Councillor Troup] to stand is to pick the man who is wanted by a great hody of electors. (2) The issue is not whether the Civic League is black or white, but plainly whether Councillor Troup is a desirable man for Mayor of the city. (3) The Civic League considers that the city comes before any person, and it recommends Councillor Troup solely because it thinks he best suits requirements. • Touching the first argument: There is as yet no evidence of real weight that the league’s nominee is wanted by a great body of electors. For that matter, the league itself does not, and cannot, speak for the great body of voters, whatever it may presume to do. _ ' . Point 2: It is an issue whether the league is black or white; that is to say, whether it has not the authority it has asserted, and whether it is provenly competent to exercise that authority. Those are most pertinent issues. Quite a lot of people are disinclined to take the league as seriously as the league takes itself. Point 3 : That the city “comes before any person” is merely a truism accepted by every responsible elector. But while the league “recommends” its candidate “solely” because of the reason given, there is always the chance, surely, of its judgment not being perfect. Does the league claim infallibility? It would seem so: infallibility and complete authority as well. Presently the league may be disillusioned and chastened.