AN EXPLANATION

Southland Times, Issue 21099, 3 June 1930, Page 8

AN EXPLANATION

CHANGE OF CITY’S NAME.

COUNCILLOR MACALISTER’S STATE-

At the meeting of the City Council last evening Councillor H. J. Macalister explained why no reference to the suggestion that Invercargill's name be changed appeared in the finance Committee's report and also took the opportunity of explaining his own part in the recommendation.

“You will notice that no reference appears in the Finance Committee’s report,” stated Councillor Macalister “to the suggested change of the city’s name. The matter was considered by the committee, which decided to put nothing in the report. I should like to take this opportunity of correcting a certain amount of misconception which has arisen on the subject. At the council table the matter was dealt with by councillors and subsequently by anonymous correspondence in the newspapers.” Councillor 'Macalister said that the suggestion had not come from himself, but was the recommendation of the committee which felt that the council might well consider the matter. At the council table one or two councillors had put a wrong construction on the clause and correspondents in the newspapers had followed suit. He wished to clear up the position in view of the criticism, some of rather a vituperative nature, directed at himself. There might, have been a certain amount of justification for these personal attacks because the committee had not supported him very strongly at the table although actually the recommendation of the committee had been unanimous. He did not know whether it had been Councillor Brodrick’s impetuous attack that caused the lack of support from the committee. Unfortunately there had been no calm and unbiassed discussion on the matter. A lot of arrant nonsense had been written and talked. He would yield to none in his loyalty to Invercargill. “A statement was made by an individual named Smith,” continued Councillor Macalister. “I think he said he felt as if he had been pierced with a sword. I am sorry to have inflicted such a grievous injury on anyone. This remark is typical of the nature of the criticism directed at the proposal—mere clap trap and humbug. Not a few people have discussed the matter with me and opinions have been expressed both ways. It is apparent that there is no unanimity and that there is a considerable body of people opposed to the change. If we have ascertained that there is this opposition—and I think there is—it is obvious that there is no prospect of a change. Personally I am still of the opinion that a change would-be all for the good.”