THE GREY RIVER ARGUS MONDAY, October 26, 1925. A UNITED FRONT.

Grey River Argus, 26 October 1925, Page 4

THE GREY RIVER ARGUS MONDAY, October 26, 1925. A UNITED FRONT.

In Saturday’s Greymouth “Star,” three letters occupy a prominent position, one over the signature of Mr D. Tennent (Chairman of the Grey Power Bon rd), another above t hat of Mr 11. ’F. Doogan (late Chairman of the j Board), and tin 1 third signed “Fair ! Play.” A few days ago we suggested • Mr Tennent would allay doubts cxisti ing in not a few quarters as to whether its borrowing authority of £BO,OOO will prove equal to the cost of the Dobson scheme, but his letter does not settle that point at all, being instead designed to saddle Mr Jas. O‘Brien in particular with the same responsibility ,as the Chairman himself for the Board’s expenditure. Pointing out at present the commitments amount to £76,336, Mr Tennent says:— “Mr O’Brien must accept an equal responsibility or share an equal credit with ev- . ery other member of the Board for the • expenditure of £51,000 since he took office.” Now Mr Tennent will not | doubt recollect that, despite the pro- | tests of eight hundred ratepayers, the j late Board, before the election of the 1 new Board, went ahead with the Dobson undertaking, and accepted (before election day) a tender of £24,611 for a steam plant, and one of £4OBO/18/- for a power house, while over £4OOO had been already laid out in preliminary expenses, making a total of over £32,700. This certainly committed the Board to a steam scheme. There can be not the slightest room for two opinions on that point. The figures we have quoted are taken from a eircu-

(without an imprint) advising the electors to support Messrs Doogan, Tennent and Perrotti at the poll. It was clearly stated those tenders had been acecepted. It was nothing to the point for the Chairman to quote the amount paid out and the amount in hand at the date of the election, because what really count i at any time arc the actual commitments, and their logical consequences, For ; a steam geacr-

ative installation without the apparatus known as an economiser is nut a complete one, any more limn would be a bicycle without, a brake, and to buy a bicycle practically commits the purchaser to the necessity of procuring a brake. Likewise, when a Board accepts a tender for a steam plant it commits itself to the eventual purchase of coal. Now we understand the Board had set aside a sum for the purchase of an economiser, to reduce the coal consumption and this at the least, would cost £2560, and eventually would cost more. In addition the Board will need offices. Further, it had also estimated early this year setting aside £lO,OOO for enabling consumers to instal electricity at their places who have not, the ready money available to do so by themselves alone. But what do we now find? The item for enabling the installations to be facilitated —£10,000 —has gone west! There is no provision for the economiser, because £lO,OOO is earmarked for wages and salaries, and the establishment of offices for the Board does not come at all into the financial picture. No doubt Air O’Brien may be left to answer for himself the insinuations of Messrs Tennent and Doogan that ho has not accurately or fairly stated the Board’s position financially, but in view of the facts we have mentioned, we repeat our advice to the Board Chairman to state clearly whether the balance available—be it £7,3664 or less —will finance the scheme to the point where it will be self-supporting. Air Doogan, after ignoring the logical consequences of the acceptance of a tender for steam plant, cites “Fair Play,” ’who says we have a “wrong conception/’ and that thF statement we suggest the Chairman should make has already been published. We note the Chairman in his letter quotes the Engineer’s figures, but does the (.'hair-

man mean to imply that the inference from tTiose figures is that £76,336 will complete the scheme, and leave £3664 in hand? That is .just the point on which wo wish to have any “wrong conceptions” removed without any more &do. If we are wrong in our conception, we are not so alone, and the public are entitled to have the position made clear,