Readers Write

Northern Advocate, 22 December 1945, Page 4

Readers Write

In my letter of December 10 I stated that I agreed with Mr J. A. S. Mac Kay that the only true comparison of

POWER CHARGES

charges between the power board and the borough supply, would be a compari-

son of the cost per unit of the total units sold by both bodies. Mr’Jones’ daily bulletin has not altered my opinion but has confirmed it.

Mr Jones is all too right when he says: “There is a load of niggers in this woodpile,” but he carefully avoids having them exposed by a thorough investigation by experts, realising no doubt that “facts are stubborn things” and that an examination would reveal the fact that the difference between the ,943 d charged by the board and the 1.194 d charged by the borough works out at an additional cost to borough consumers of £7176 per annum. Mr Jones’ reference to Auckland as being in the same position as Whangarei is astounding. Is Mr Jones not aware that Auckland is one of the largest and most prosperous power boards in New Zealand and that of the many ( boroughs within its boundaries there‘ is not one parasite, but are all co-operating for the common good? One, perhaps naturally, suspects others of using tactics which would appeal to one’s self under similar circumstances. It is therefore rather chattering to one’s faith in the arguments used by the chairman of the Municipal Electricity Committee when replying to letters which appeared in your paper nearly two weeks before, to find that he suggests that the account which I submitted for comparison purposes is “a faked account to suit the letter.” Let me assure Mr Jones that faked accounts are not necessary to show that some of the £7176 I referred to come from the domestic users; in this case 10/5 i on a power board account for £l/3/113. —BOROUGH CONSUMER (No. 2).