THE ADJUSTMENT OF TOWN RATE ACCOUNT.

Marlborough Express, Volume V, Issue 242, 30 July 1870, Page 4

THE ADJUSTMENT OF TOWN RATE ACCOUNT.

To the Editor of the Marlborough Express. Sir, —Permit me a little space in your columns in reply to Mr James T. Robinson’s letter in your last issue. Thirty-nine persons have paid one year’s rates more than all the restypf the ratepayers. Mr Robinson does not dispute this, consequently that is one point made good. Now, seeing that it never was any part of the understanding that these thirty-nine persons were to pay a year’s rates in excess of all the others, it follows quite clearly that the town rate account ought to be adjusted. “ But,” says Mr Robinson, “ assuming that the rates were to be returned, how unjust it would be to the present ratepayers, as the rate then was on the value to sell exclusive of buildings or improvements thereon.” Now I must say that I fail to see what that has to do with the point in dispute. My £1 is of the same value to me as to the other ratepayers ; and if I have paid a pound more than my fair share, 1 am entitled to have it refunded to me. I, and those whom I represent, do not want a year’s rate allowed at the present value of rating, whether that be more or less—we want a pound where we paid a pound in excess. That is very simple. We townspeople may be compared to a company, the object of which is to make and maintain the roads of the town. It is arranged that we pay towards that object in proportion to the property we own or rent; and it is perfectly right and just to pay back to anyone who has paid in excess out of the rates which has been contributed by all. I fail to see that the different mode of rating, or the different value of property, has anything to do with the question. If I have paid a pound more than my share, the town owes me that pound. Whatever the mode of rating was when I paid in excess, it was the same scale for all of us ; and whatever the mode of rating is in operation, it is the same for me as the rest of the ratepayers, so that the proportion is maintained throughout. For the amounts we have paid in excess give us credit in the town books now, and the debt of the town will be paid when the rates to which we are now, or may bo, liable, equal the amount to our credit.

But let ua hear Mr Robinson again—“ Would it be fair or honest to rate those persons who were not in the Province in order to pay back old rates, they having paid the legal debts of the Board ?” Mr Robinson here writes as though the Board was something separate and apart from the town. What is the position of any Board, or of the Borough Council, with reference to the town ? Is it not that such Board or Council is the Board of Directors of the ratepayers ? And is it not that the town is bound by all that the Board or Council does for it ? And is not any debt which such Board or Couucil contracts the debt of the town? Why, then, should Mr Robinson use such a phrase above as ‘ ‘ debts of the Board ” ? It should be “debts of the town.” The Board never pocketed a shilling ; and as for the difficulties it got into, “it was,” as Mr Robinson justly says, “more the fault of the Act than those who worked it.” 1 am surprised at a person occupying the position of a Councillor asking if it “ would be fair or honest to rate those who were not in the Province ” —who may have eome since, being understood. I would ask Mr Robinson, will it lie fair or honest to rate those who may come to the town after the £IOOO has been borrowed and spent, to pay either principal or interest of the £1000? All the money which ever came into the hands of the Town Board was as truly spent on Town affairs as this projected loan of £IOOO may be, and therefore it would be perfectly just to reimburse those who have contributed more than a fair share to town expenses, though some new people may have come to the town. Mr Robinson, not being able to deny that 38 persons did pay one year’s rates more than all the rest, tries to justify the none reimbursing of them by saying that they spent their own money. His words are—“So it will be seen that if the 38 did pay one year’s more rates than many of us, they at least spent th ir own money, and some of ours besides.” The money that these persons paid was not employed in initiating new works, for the town was then too much in debt; nor was this money employed in beginning law suits—all that had been done before. The money was simply used in paying debts of the town ; in fact, by aid of it we paid the town’s debt to the Bank. So it is not true that the 38 who did pay one year’s rates more than many of the ratepayers had the spending of their own money, unless paying the town debts as far as the money would go was spending it. Ho one can show that the 38 spent it in any way to their own special advantage. And certainly they did not spend anybody else’s money, as they did not initiate any new work. 1 have now noticed the only parts of Mr Robinson’s letter which contains anything like argument, and I shall proceed, being as brief as possible, to notice some minor matters. I am accused of raking up “old grievances.” It is not an old grievance, it is a present one ; and if it were an old grievance, that is the greater reason why it should be settled, Mr Robinson says :—“The Council did refuse, as Mr H. informs the public, to entertain his letter requesting that his rate, and those for whom he paid in 18667, be refunded to him.” I never informed the public of any such thing. Mr Robinson says, “ Mr Henderson sees no injustice in 140 persons paying an illegal rate,” &c. Who told Mr Robinson that ? I have never said that I see no injustice in it. Mr Robinson then says that I see “a great display of dishonesty” in the town not returning the rate, &c. I have never in this discussion used the word “dishonesty.” But Mr Robinson, so often mis-states and misrepresents what, I have said, that I shall not follow him further. But I do think it would have been better if he had quoted from my letter, and replied to that, for he certainly has neither answered my letter nor “Ratepayer’s,” What I have said is that 39 persons have paid one year’s rates more than all the rest, and two years’ rates more than Mr Sinclair, and Mr Robinson cannot deny it. And I have said that justice requires that these 39 persons ought to have one year’s rate refunded to them in some way, as it is not just that they should pay more than their neighbors, and Mr Robinson cannot

deny that. He may writhe and twist ; say that I have said what 1 have not said, and misrepresent what I have said ; and generally kick up a dust, but there remains my position as stated. If Mr .Robinson, will not give those of us who have paid the year in excess our rates back, let him and his friends at least pay up their rate for that year, and we will be satisfied. Nothing can be fairer than that.—l am, &c.. Geo. Henderson. Blenheim, July 28, 1870. To the Editor of the Marlborough Express. Sir, —If Mr Sinclair had paid closer attention to my letter before accusing me of being “incorrect,” he might have avoided falling into that state himself. Mr Sinclair did not pay the first year’s rate of the three years under consideration in my letter. The “beginning” referred to in the present discussion is the time when the irregularity began, namely, the first year that Mr Sinclair did not pay —when we all paid but himself, and when we were placed in the position of having to bear the “defalcation” (that is English) as best we might. The remainder of Mr Sinclair’s letter is a flourish of trumpets, parading how much he has paid to what I have. The reason is, you see, Mr Sinclair is a rich man and has large properties, and he pays (or ought to pay) according to what he has. If I have not paid so much as he has, I suppose it is because I am a poor man. The “ parade ” is not with me but,with himself. —I am, &c. Geo. Henderson. Blenheim, July 28, 1870.