HACKTHORNE EXTENSION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17523, 5 July 1917, Page 9

HACKTHORNE EXTENSION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —We notice this matter came up for discussion at the meeting of the Tramway Board yesterday. During the discussion Mr Flesher stated that certain of the statements made at the meeting of ratepayers could not be allowed to pass unchallenged. Although : we have no wish to bo drawn into a discussion, and are quite willing for our case to be decided by the Courts, there are one or two matters in the report published in to-day's paper which we cannot allow to pass unchallenged, and the inconsistency of the board can best bo shown by making a few references to the report. Mr Flesher states that if the ratepayers of tho main area had had a say in the matter the proposal would have been turned down. This statement is scarcely correct as when tho board advertised its intention to apply for tho Order-in-Council the ratepayers of the Christchurch City could, under the Tramways Act, have demanded a poll, and it was up to Mr Flesher as representing that area if he thought fit to have called for a poll. Mr Flesher further states that Mr G. T. Booth, at the meetings ho had addressed, fully explained tho position, and the promoters were aware of tho legislative powers that the board was •seeking. The inference is that this legislation would be retrospective. Later on in the report Mr Booth himself says his impression was that the special legislation was not to be retrospective./ Who is correct, Mr Flesher or Mr Booth? Again we read that Mr Flesher says there has been no breach of contract. Mr Sykes says there was. Again, who is correct, Mr Flesher or Mr Sykes? Mr Pearce states that the Ha'ckthorne people were under the impression that operating expenses would have to be paid. This statement is an important one, and is apt to convey quite an erroneous impression. We have not only paid operating expenses ever since the line was laid down but in addition to that we have (as appears by the printed accounts of the board) made a profit over operating expenses each year as follows:—1913, £548 2s lid; 1914, £420 10s 3d; 1915, £694 Is 6d; 1916, £931 17s 3d. Again we ask which is correct. Mr Pearce's reported statement or the accounts of the board? We cannot think that Mr Pearce, from whom this line has received so much consideration, is correctly reported when he states that the Hackthorne ratepayers contend that they should he free of operating expenses. No ratepayer has ever suggested such a thing for one moment, and it is wholly incorrect to make such a suggestion. " Operating expenses " do not include reserves for depreciation and renewal. The board contends they do. The Court of Appeal in the Wadestown case held they did not. Again, which is right, the board or the Court of Appeal? What we do object to is being rated for depreciation and renewals which the board has no legal right to do. We •object, in the words of the Wadestown case, "to the generation which advanced the money to construct this line having the profits therefrom held for the possible benefit of the next.' As pointed out at the meeting of ratepayers, and as we have pointed out again and again to the board, there is no desire to repudiate any obligation entered into by them, but they do at least ask that the contract which they entered into shall.be carried out according to the law as it then existed.— We are, etc. " W. H. WINSOR, Chairman Hackthorne Tramway Extension Committee. FRANK O. ANDREWS, Honorary Secretaiy.