THE MAYORALTY

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

THE MAYORALTY

LEAGUE AND MR NORWOOD “THE VIOLENT EXPLOSION OF COUNCILLOR H. D. BENNETT’ DECLARATION OF WAR In a further statement in reference to the Mayoral campaign, the Civic League states: “It is an impertinence on the part Of a section of those sujiporting the Mayor, Mr Norwood, to inter that the act of endorsing anyone else is an offence, and to seek to dictate to other citizens whom they should choose. Wo are pleased to observe that even some of those who are disposed to quarrel with the Civic League admit that Councillor Troup is a sound man, and a good candidate. The league lias chosen its candidate, and will stand by him right through. At the same time, Mr Troup is more than the league’s candidate. “At this time the league desires to point out that the opponents of Councillor Troup are relying on the raising of false issues in order to mislead the electors. Instead of dealing with the candidate they are making attacks on the Civic League. They no doubt think that if they can discredit the league they will have injured Councillor Troup as a candidate. That is not straight fighting, and cannot be endorsed by any real sport in the city. . . To raise questions of the Mayor’s presumed right to a four-year term (not a right at all); the assumed wickedness of the Civic League in transacting its business in its own way, and not as directed by those opposed, and other quibbles, is to raise false issues. “Mr Norwood, in answering a deputation, said he wanted to be fair to the Civic League, and he acknowledged that the league’s president and secretary had consulted him before any candidate was chosen. That, whilst true, was only part, and the Mayor should have told the full truth about it. Here are the facts: Before Mr Norwood went to Sydney about three months ago, he was first waited qn by the league’s officer, under instruction, and asked if he desired to seek another term of office. He replied that he could not then say,, but would go into the matter, and be in a position to answer after he returned. On his return from Sydney the president and secretary were instructed to consult the Mayor a»ain. This the officers did, and could receive no definite assurance one way or another. REPLY TO COUNCILLOR H. D. BENNETT. “The violent explosion of Councillor H. D. Bennett in the way of attack on the Civic League has not surprised the league officers. It is characteristic of the limn'to strike at a body if he thinks it is in trouble. He made a similar ifttack on the league two years ago, and it still lives. The league is not in trouble, but those working up this agitation against it are very much so. This particular councillor has acquired a habit of speaking for the councillors as if he owned them. He has, on occasions, done the same for the Mayor. On this occasion he has presumed too far, and his violent declaration of war on the Civic League will render him ridiculous. Councillor H. D. Bennett bad no authority to speak as he did in committal of the councillors. We know of nine councillors who were-never consulted before that tirade was delivered. We do not suppose ther’ 1 three‘Labour Party men were approached. That is 12 out fit 15—but it- isi doubtful if anyone was consulted “A’ number of the councillors whomc wei have spoken to deny that the councillor in question had any right-to, speak for them ' n such a way, and ■ dissociate themselves from the attack on the league. The talk of a council bloc is no new thing. We will deal with it oniv when it arises.”