CARTERTON BOROUGH ELECTION.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XVI, Issue 5169, 30 October 1895, Page 3

CARTERTON BOROUGH ELECTION.

From un Omnivmil Cvmspandeul, x Some two months and more ago 3 local feeling on municipal affairs, 3 which Imvo been running high for a 3 year or two, seemed to touch boiling » point, and a petition largely signed 1 was forwarded to headquarters for 1 dividing tlio borough into wards, j To relate the full history of the . causes of differences would take too much space, and would, too, be of i very little interest to those outside [ Carterton. This much, however, can ; be said that Carterton has always . taken the keenest possible interest : in general, as well as local politics, i and as is natural, definite parties . have been formed and with those ; paities there have, of course, been , certain leaders—leaders who are in, i and leaders who are out. Those i who were out, say that for several ■ years those who were in have claimed ■ tho right of deciding mailers that, , should bo left lo the people, I hat the i , affairs of the Borough have been subordinated to party polities, and that in consequence there has been i weakness of administration and that 1 to some extent intimidation and misrepresentation were resorted to, lo keep the reins of power. Then the old argument of majorities and minorities came to the surface with the claim of the latter to a share of representation. Tho climax was i reached when the "outs" announced 'the discovery that their property I was unequally represented on the I Burgess roll and a batch of 40 or 50 I applications (o be placed thereon resulted. The number was no doubt a surprise the Council, and though justified in tho refusal of some of the applications, either through design oi ignorance of the circumstances, a number of legitimate applications, were met with a point blank refusal and indeed the Council even went so far as lo want a voice in saying who should be selected to represent certain properties. Law writs and bias tilled the air for a day or two, but other counsels prevailed and it was decide todivide the Borough into wards and so increase the councillors from six to nine. Five out of six of tho Councillors took a hostile stand on this proposal and while their opposition was unavailing, their action raised a storm about their heads. The petition was granted and the Council party attempted lo meet their opponents arguments by personal interview with the ratepayers. Their opponents took theother course of calling a public meeting to consider the business, a course that had not been adopted for several years past, When the nominations were announced there was at once a feeling that improvement would follow, as the list comprised the names of sixteen men, nearly all of whom would be new men, and twelve of them petitioners for the division. In Richmond Ward there were three nominations from each side, while in the other two wards there were two from each party and one candidate voted for by both sides, viz,, Mr John Udy and Mr James Stevens. Of course these candidates headed the poll in their respective wards. Both parties worked hard, both were eager, and both were anxious. Just before tho declaration, one of the Council's party was offering to bet that the whole nine the Council had voted for would be returned, but when Lincoln Ward result was announced, showing that the late Councillor Hercock was rejected, while Mr Adam Armstrong was elected, it was at once felt that the tables were turned and the opposition had won. This was confirmed with the result for Richmond Ward, although Mr W. Moore, a late Councillor, by the aid of his family votes, topped the poll, as Mr J. Applin, tho minority's former representative,was close up and Mr Bassett was a new man. In Belvedere Ward, Mr Stevens being voted for by both parties, scored highest, while Mr G. A. Fairbrother came next, Mr Bayliss, the old Councillor,beingfourth. Mr Strang, who had only taken a seat onco after his Steptember election, was also returned. The result now is a Council comprising seven petitionists, including Councillor Applin,ono old Councillor of the Council's party (Mr Moore), and Mr Strang, who sat at one Council meeting before the dissolution. The result has given very general satisfation in the town, and many of those who voted against somo of tho successful men now admit that a good working Council lias beon chosen. Now the question placed foromost is, who is to be the next- Mayor. Mr Deller, who has filled tho chair for three years, has intimated that ho is retiring, and it is rumoured that Dr. Johnston is to be asked to allow himself to be nominated. If he consents there will be no doubt of his success, as hehasuotbeen identified with the struggle justconcluded.