STILL AT IT!

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12608, 19 November 1926, Page 8

STILL AT IT!

LEAGUE AND MAYORALTY FURTHER STATEMENT. Tho following statement has been issued by the Civic League in respect to the Mayoral controversy:— “Having read the Mayor’s reply ta our league’s statement, we think the same is very weak. It is only necessary to correct some of his numerous mis-statements, which we do as follows : 1. The statement which appeared in the league’s name was not from its secretary, but a considered pronouncement of the executive decided on at a meeting. 2. The league’s records show that election matters were first considered at a meeting on August 19th. It is therefore unlikely that the Mayor was first consulted in June. 3. The league nowhere says that a conversation took place between the Mayor and its secretary re the former’s trip to Sydney. Mr Norwood has no right to represent the league as stating something it never said. 4. The question, after all, of whether Mr .Norwood was interviewed 'in June or August is a mere quibble. 5. The material fact is that, on his own admission, he was paid the courtesy of being consulted twice when no one else was consulted even once. That was clearly showing proper courtesy to the office of Mayor. 6. In return for this courtesy, Mr Norwood publicly represented that the league, in consulting him, did so with an ulterior motive, which was surely a discourtesy on his part. 7. The present statement of tho Mayor that a “demand” was made on him is contradicted by his own language, when he said: ‘‘They (the league’s officers! asked me if I was going to stand.” Surely Mr Norwood recognises the difference \ between a question and a demand. 8. As showing how careless Mr* Norwood is in his reply, he says: “The officers in question waited upon me two or three days prior to their announcement of their selection of Councillor Troup.” The actual, facts are that Mr Norwood was interviewed on October 11th, and Councillor Troup was chosen by the league on November 3rd. 9. Mr Norwood asks: “Is there no dignity about the office of Mayor of this city?” in a way to suggest that any criticism of the occupant of this office is an attack on the office and on the city. To admit such a thing would \be to stifle all right of public comment on any Mayor’s actions, which is positively ridiculous 10. To represent that the Civic League in choosing its own candidate is dictating to other people, as the Mayor is doing, is most absurd. Everybody has a right to choose and recommend whom they please, as lias been done by Mr Norwood’s own supporters. If there is dictation anywhere it is in tho attempts being made to represent the exercise of this right-as if it were an offence.