BOROUGH GAS SUPPLY.

Bruce Herald, Volume L, Issue 32, 30 April 1914, Page 5

BOROUGH GAS SUPPLY.

(To ibe Editor). Sir,—ln your issue of the 9th insfi. there appeared a letter under the now de plume of 'Ratepayer No 2,' containing statements and figures which art altogether wrong. 1 have been expecting the Borough clerk to set |tbc true position of affairs before the ratepayers, but as he has not done so lam taking it upon myself to try to remove the false impression created by your correspondent, viz., that the gas plant is being run at a serious loss. It is news to me to learn that the ratepayers have been, or ;;oan be, kept in the dark as to the difference between receipts and expenditure of a municipal undertaking, as the accounts of the Borough are anuuaiiy overhauled by the Government's auditor, and the balance-sheet is published in the local paper. If your correspondent had taken his figures from the published balance-sheet he could not have made the mistake of stating that there had beeu a loss of £IOO upon the working of the plant for the past year. Instead of doing so ho prefers to wait some months until the Municipal Handbook comes alonj, and accepts this summary as containing the figures for tne. year, which it doos not do. Upon the figured in Ratepayer's letter I fail

to see any loss but rather a handsome profit for the year--Revenue £57!3, expenditure £372—a difference of £2OO to tho good. I recret that the profit does not amount to this sum, but it is, nevertheless, substantial, viz., £11(5 19s 9d. The correct figures from the Municipal Handbook, however, are I —Revenue £s72,"expenditure £733, which appear to siiow a loss of £1(50, as stated by your "manly" correspondent "Ratepayer No. 2." Now turn to the baJance-slieet to ascertain tho true position, and it will be seen that the receipts for the year were £572 15s 7d and expenditure £455 15s lUd, showing a profit for the year of £ll6 19s 9d, as I have stated, which reduced the debit balance of tho account from £27(5 «s lid at the commencement of the year, to £159 9s 2d at the end of the year. I cannot quote the issuo of the paper in which the balance sheet appeared, but perhaps, Sir, you will be good enough to supply the want, and emphasise my point and verify my figures. Tiie expenditure appearing in the Municipal Handbook represents the total expenditure on plant and material, outside of loan moneys, since the installation of the gas, and it lsjjthroughgfailure to apprehend this fact that your correspondent has made his serious mistake. lam fully aware that tho difference between receipts and expenditure does not necessarily mean that a profit has been made, corresponding to ; the amount, as the matter of carbide and other materials on hand must be taken into consideration, but for the moment

I am treating tb.e "matter from the same point of view as your correspondent. I may say, however, that an examination of the Dooks discloses the fact that an actual profits has been made lor the year, and I am sure that it will be gratifying to the ratepayers to learn that no loss whatever has been made during the year under review, aud that the erroneous statements of "Ratepayer No. 2" are absolute piffle. One other matter.—l quite recognise that men who occupy pubiiy positions must be opou to reasonable criticism, and I am open to admit that at times the anonymous letter may serve a useful purpose, but when i'fc is used as a shelter from which JJ to make thinly veiled allegations ot wholesale "graft", and with the object of personal abuse, the user of a nom de plume disgraces his manhood. In tiiis category I class your esteemed corresponds, t, "Ratepayer No 2." Li a man who occupies a public position is to be'snjected to such contemptible attacks as were tcade in your correspondent's "letter, i is little wonder that apathy is prevalent in connection with municipal aud other public affairs. In conclusion, Sir, so far as my observation goes it appears to be the custom of some newspapers to refer to the parties interested before publication of any attack upon the financial status of any institution,' so that the explanation may appear with the-attack, which has not then the same damning influence. I have no doubt yon recognise this practice, but probably your correspondent's letter was received at the last moment, and you inadvertently allowed it to be published without following your I usual procedure, and in part perhaps 1 the oversight was due to your concern about the law of libel as to how much of the letter you must delete. Be this as it may, I think it is to be regretted "that you did not refer the allegations to lne Borough Clerk, and it it is not vutir practice to do so, if your reporter had seen fit to attend'the last meeting of the Council he would have heard the refutation of the figures in the Municipal Handbook openly mentioned in Council as well as other matters of great interest to the ratepayers. --I am, etc.,

G. HAMILTON THUMSON. Mil [on, April 29th. 1914. [With the clauses of the foregoing letter in reply to "Ratepayer No 2" we refrain from comment thei6on,. except to substantiate the information that the figures quoted by Mr Thomson appear in the balance-sheet. L'he concluding paragraphs, however, .ire levelled apparently at criticism of ourselvrs. Mr Thomson, it might be remembered by our readers, has iireviously received a "rap over the •tuuckles'' in endeavoring to show how we should conduct our own business—in reference to the Coronation baths—but apparently the lesson nas been forgotten.- We would refer him to the note always appearing a 5 thb conimencoruont of correspondence to tho editor. The ooucludiug paragraph might, be passed in silenct, but we draw the writer's attention to ! the frequent "in committee" meetings recently, When matters ofpublic interest have been brought forward for discussion by the .Borough Council, the members swallowing the | corn, und leaving the husks for pubi .ligation,-Ed, j>ro tern, B, H, },