CITY FINANCE REFORM.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9020, 5 February 1895, Page 6

CITY FINANCE REFORM.

TO TUB KDITCB OF THE PBESS. Sm, —Councillor Gray has briefly shown that by converting the Council's loans, amounting to £72,500 into 4 per cent, debentures, there would be a direct saving amounting to £1826, as well as releasing the sinking fund, which after providing tor necessary expenses upon the transaction would leave the handsome balance of £4000 to expend upon improvements in the city. Now, sir, it occurs to mc that as the Drainage Board for a long time past have done nothing but the most meagre administration, because they have not had the money, to do any work with ; many necessary works have been shunted quite recently, the Tuam ktreet ditch was left for the want of funds, and now the mud banks in the river for the same reason. If it is neceesary and desirable to convert the City Loans it surely is more so urgent to convert the Drainage Board's loans. Their loan of £200.000 is at 6 per cent. ; their overdraft, about £5000, is at? pwr cent. By converting these.into 4 per cent, debentures it would save £4150 per annum ; but, again, there would be about £2000 of sinking fund released. This amount ihould be nearly sufficient to pay the premium neceesary to redeem the present debentures. As both these accounts are of very direct interest to the citizens would it not be desirable for the City Council to take orer the control of the Drainage loans and convert the wholo lot under one Act; the one expense would do the two. Nearly the whole of the present ipterest is payable in London; to remit the interest and agency coste near £300 per annum. No doubt a large portion of the new scrip would be taken up locally.'; If so, there would be a further saving on this last account. Total amount by these conversions show a saving upwards of £6000 per annum. Surely this should induce others, as well as our worthy Councillors, to assist and further this reform.—Yours, &a,

Eco.NOMy.

(language he of course looks tip* his English dictionary. I therefore beg to refer Co the J dictionaries of the English language. The i Imperial Dictionary and Webster's English Dictionary say " Wine, the fermented juice of the grape." Richardson's Dictionary, " Wine, the fermented juice of the fruit of the vine and of other trees." Rutledge'a Dictionary, *' Wine, the fermented juice of the grape." Nuttall's Standard Dictionary, " Wine, the fermented juice of grapes ; the juice of certain fruits, prepared with sugar,

spirits, &o." Having quoted all these well-known lexicographers I think I may assert thac the term " unfermonted wine" is a contradiction, an absurdity, a thing that does not exist and never did exist. The very fact of anything being called wine is in itself the proof thac it has been fermented, and vice vena. Anything that has not been fermented is not wine. 1 claim that the t3xts I have quoted can only be read, "Draw out now, and bear unto the Governor of the feast." (What ? The fermented juico of the grape, i.e., wine). Again, "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it." (What ? The fermented juice of the grape, i.e., wine). " But I say unto you I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine " (i.e., the fermented juice of the grape, wine), " until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." I am not going to argue if the English word " wine" here used, or referred to, in the authorised version of the Bible, should have been translated "wine, , ' "toastand water," or "lemonade." I simply quote the Bible as I find it. If the translation is

wrong that is not my fault, and the sooner the clergy of the Christian church give us laymen a correct translation of the Bible, up to date, the better. Learned divines, rabbis, Hebrew scholars, and prohibitionists can argue and fight over this translation to their heart's content. I think I have proved my point, and beg to thank you, Mr Editor, for your kindness in publishing my letters.—Yours, &a, W.B.