CITY RATES.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 16083, 13 December 1917, Page 5

CITY RATES.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE TRESS." Sir,—Tho explanation given by the town clerk in regard to the additional 10 per centum seems to b© very elastic. He admits that the Act reads: "Six months and fourteen days." Then "what right has he, or his legal adviser, to twist the wording of the Act round just to suit the City Council's purpose, which was done in his notification last February, thereby causing a great many ratepayers the inconvenience of paying their rates on the last day of February, instead of three days later? Tho "fourteen days after demand thereof" is only a formality, and I never heard of rates being sued for at tho expiration of that period. Even if they were, the probability is that it would not be necessary to add tho additional 10 per contnm. Why the town clerk should now alter his notification in accordance with the wording of the Act appears peculiar, unless it -is an admission that last February's notice was wrong, and more especially as there is a difference of only one day in the issuing of the rate notices last year and this, the former being "dated this 17th day of August, 1916," and the latter "dated this 18th day of August, 1917." I fail to see what the number of days in the months has to do with it. We all know that "six months," according to the Act. means calendar (and not lunar) months. However, there is now some satisfaction in the town clerk's latest notification. being in accordance with the wording of the Act. The town clerk appears to have evaded my query regarding those who paid the 10 per centum on last rates through this misunderstanding, and if it was refunded or not.—Yours, etc., ' CITY RATEPAYER,