NEWS AND NOTES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 966, 5 November 1910, Page 7

NEWS AND NOTES.

"STRANGERS" AND THE MAIN LOBBY. A complaint was made by Mr. G. W. Russell,' M.P., in tho House of Representatives' yesterday that "strangers" were' being allowed the too-free use of the main lobby, which is reserved specially for members. Members frequently took their friends through'the. lobby, .but the "strangers" did not always realise that they were pormitted merely to pa£s through. On the preceding evening he liad been an eyewitness of a rather regrettable occurrence which would not havo.happened if the rule had not been strained. Mr. Speaker said that lie'would give instructions that no "strangers" should bo allowed'to remain in the lobby. Both Mr. Massey and Mr. Davey emphasised the need for waiting-rooms to which members might take visiting constituents.. . , . . . The Hon: R. M'Kenzie suggested that members should, in tho meantime, use the waiting-rooms in tho old Parliamentary Buildings. NEW PARLIAMENT BUILDINCS. "Will the Prime Minister tell us when tho Government will proceed with tho erection of the new Parliament Buildings f" This was' a query put by Mr. Herd man,, M.P. for Wellington North, to Sir Joseph Ward in'..the'Houso of Representatives yesterday. Sir Joseph replied that ho hoped to bo able to get authority this session for ■calling tenders for the new Parliament Buildings. Mr. Massey: Oh,'let it stand over until after next election! - Sir " Joseph: We don't believe in procrastination. You aro too slow. .1 would hayo had;it up, on the old site long ago. "Wo are not going back there; that is a decision of- the House," was Sir Joseph's rejoinder.

THE "BLUOCEON" ARCUMENT. An assertion •by tho Prime Minister last night that he could not accept an amendment to an important clause in the National Provident Fund Bill drew from Mr. Wright, M.P. for Wellington South, tho.remark that he regretted • that Sir Joseph 'had deemed it necessary to employ tho "bludgeon" argument.' Mr. Wright went on to ask if it 'wore .of any uso for members to discuss the Bill if the Prime Minister were' going to adopt the attitude that if the amendment • were adopted he would drop the Bill. "It is not fair to members," added Mr. Wright. RATING BILL. Alterations of an unimportant nature only have been made by tho Native Alfairs Committee in the Rating Amendment Bill.. Where Native freehold land is vested. in a Maori Land Board or in the Public Trustee, the. board or Trustee shall not bo liable for. any rates in respect thereof iii excess of tho revenues' actually received from .the land' during the period in respect of which tho rates become duo, and during a period of three years after the date on which they became due. In the Bill as circulated this period was two years. MR, LUKE AND WATER POWER. ' . [To the Editor.] ■ > - Sir,—l canriot believe you have any desire to misreport my remarks on tho Water Power Bill, but, whether or no, you have done so in your sub-leader of yesterday. Your' reporter's condensed, report of my speech is correct, but your deductions from it are incorrect. In justice to. myself I crave, as a matter of fairplay, that you should give equal publicity to this correction. You stated that my attempt to traverso Mr. Jenkinson's able speech "was a lamentable performance, and my figures were at times ludicrous as 0110 example will show." ....

You then proceeded to state that "Mr... Luko stated that the late Mr. Hay's estimate was based oil a load factor of 100 per cent, which, by tho way, it was not, as such a load factor is physically impossible in actual practice." ' .

Mr. Hay used the term "continuous working" throughout his report to mean continuous working at full load. This is another way of saying at load factor of 100 per cent. It is certainly impossible, commercially, and I nowhere stated that it could be realised. Tho term of 100 per cent was used to signify tlio highest possible, after allowing for losses common to electricity, under all conditions, according to the length of transmission. Doubtless Mr. Hay's intention was to show what, the probablo revenuo would be.

I was explaining to tho Council what in my opinion accounted for the lower cstimato of tho Primo Minister's, which was for a smaller scheme of 10,000 h.p., at a cost of £270,000. I went on to explain tho difference of cost at the head works. No dam being necessary, the lake could be tapped at, say, 20ft. below surface level. This saving, together with lesser plant, accounted for the differences. This statement is self-evident, and yet you drow two entirely false deductions from it as to what I "seem to think." I did not state at any time that tho higher the load factor tho higher tho cost of production of a unit, but I did state the higher tho load factor the greater tho output and rovenuc at the same annual cost—exactly tho rcverso of your statement. Nor did I state at any time that with a smaller plant tho load factor was necessarily smaller. In my speech I passed on to compare tho Waipori water scheme with the Wellington and Christclnirch schemes under steam., . I demonstrated the higher tho load factor the larger the' revenue. You, like Mr. Jenkinson, with a gentle wave of the hand, passed

tho Waipori scheme aside. This was one of my chief arguments. I said Mr. Jenldnsou's statement that tho load factor at tho Wellington station on that particular day was not 15 per cent, but 4G.2 por cent. I showed that tho load factor, which indicated the demand, was much higher than they could supply in Dunedin than in Wellington, due, in my opinion, to tho much lower charge per unit, and if they chargo tho same price in Dmiedin as is charged in Wellington they not only could provido an equal amount for depreciation and sinking fund, but would also havo a larger profit per-unit at the end of the year. This notwithstanding I said the splendid and ablo management of Mr. Stuart Richardson, of Wellington, whoso management- was equal to that of any in tho Dominion. Thanking you in anticipation.—lam, CHARLES M. LUKE. November 3. [In view of the fact that Mr. Luko allows our report to be correct, wo arc at a loss to know how we can bo chargod with having misrepresented him in our editorial of Wednesday. Wo repeat.that part of our report (which is allowed to be correct) upon which our comment was based: Referring to the Lake Coleridge scheme Mr. Luke said the Hon. Mr. Jenkinson -thought tho Prime Minister was too lowin his. estimate of tho scheme. Mr. Hay certainly estimated that 29,000 horse-power would cost «G700,000 or .£2l per horsepower, and 14,500 horse-power JCi-10,000, or .£3O por horse-power, whereas tho Primo Minister ..estimated 10,000 horse-power at ,£270,000, -or X 27 per horse-power, hut Mr. Jeukiuson did not point "out that Mr. Hay's, estimates. were for continuous working at 100 per cent, load factor. For tho requirements of practical operation .with a probable load factor of _20 per cent, to 30 per cent, a proportionately smaller quantity of water and correspondingly smaller outlay in headworks was required. Our comment upon this point was as follows: —

Mr. Jenkinson had claimed tliat the Prime Minister's estimato of the cost per horso-power in the G'oleridgo scheme was too low, and Mr. Luke admitted that it was lower than Mr. Hay's. But. said Mr. Luke, illr. Hay's estimate was based on a load factor of 100 per cent, (which, by the way, it was not, as such' a load factor is physically impossible in actual practice). Mr. Luke added that with a probable load factor of 20 to 30 per cent a proportionately small quantity of water and smaller outlay on hcadworks would be required. Mr. Luke evidently has not a notion of what..."load factor .means. Ho seems, to think—(ll that the higher the "load factor" the higher the cost, of production of a unit, and (2) that the smaller thfc plant the smaller the "load factor." - As wo havo already plained, the higher the "load factor" is the lower is the cost of production; while the "load factor" lias no relation to the ■size of a plant, any more than _ the ability of a man depends upoii his girth. We aro glad to give Mr. Lnko. space to restate his position, but wo aro bound to say xve do not think anybody Svill feel that he has.improved his jiosition in any way, or even explained what ho .rteaivt to say.]

Notice of motion has been'given by' the Hon. W. Beehan, M.L.C., that ho will move in Committee that fish should be, inchided in the schedule of tho Commercial Trusts Bill.