To the Editor of the 'Evening Mail.'

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXVII, Issue 104, 4 May 1893, Page 3

To the Editor of the 'Evening Mail.'

the pnrsonality of a certain Councillor ha been so strong in the Council, tho overdraf 1 as goue up £851, and stood oq tbat date a £2522. The ratepayers may well pray— save rue from my friends. — I am, etc,, J. TIPEU.

SIR— As a petition is bang circulated reflecting on me as tbe mover in the tiansfer of tbe £300 from the Gas Account to the General Account, allow me space for reply. The main question, and the base upon whioh the justioe or injustioe ot the transaction etanda is, to whom do the Gaßwoiks belong? The first answer is, They are vested in the Corporation of the city, in other words the Major, Council, and burgeßses of the city. The second answer is that the money was borrowed upon security of the rates. The Nelson City Loan Act, 1871, section 5, 6tateß:-"AU moneys borrowed under the authority of this Act shall be a charge upon all rates and sums of money raised and received under kelson Gas Act, 1871, or the Nelson Waterworks Act, 1863, and upon all rates levied or to be levied within the City of Nelson for municipal purposes." This';is proof positive that the gasworks belong to the citizens as such, and not 10 the gas consumers who happen to be citizens. In what Position then do the gas consumers stand? Well, they are ratepayers who are oustomeis of the corporation. But they have no right to all the profits simply because they are cuetomera. But, at the same time, the corporation has no right to charge high prices for gas in order to make large profits for city improvements. This, I think, is clear to BDy reasonable mac. and this is the principle practised, upon wbich tbe corporation has acted since the gasworks have been in their possession. As a proof last year they took 10630 gallons of tar for the streets worth £137, they reduced the price of lighting from £4 4s per lamp to £3 ss, or for V2o lamps £118 15s per annum, totalling £300 5s in the year. But on the other hand we have not charged a penny for rates, which means at a value of £20,000, a gift from the general fund of £100 at least per annum, or *2000 within the 20 years they have been erected, and again as proiit allowed have reduced the price of gas to the next lowest point in New Zealand. And I unhesitatingly say but for this polfcy we never would have had our splendid asphalt footways in the centre of the city, nor the city half so well lighted. Those councillors who are now carting the petition around have been parties to this policy, and yet they charge us with robbing the gas works because we have taken £300 in cash from proiit winch has been earned, to meet a temporary need to carry out a very important work. ISow, what led up to this vote ? Simply this, we have an important work, estimated to cost £10,630, oi -which the Government finds one-third, or £3544 in money and labour, leaving £7087 to be found by the City Council, County Council, Richmond Borough and an unceitiin Eource of subscription?, The City Council portion was two-thude. the County Council and Richmond Borough one-third. The Executive Committee of tbe Rocks Road apportioned £4000 tn the City, £1500 to the County, and £500 to the Richmond Borough. This left a balance of £1087 to be provided by subscription. Only a part, £324 has been Eubscribtd wbich leaves a balance to be raised by the three bodies of £693 to reach the estimate £10,630. Oar portion, one-thud, is £462. It was shown at the April meeting of the Rocks Road that there was a cash balance of £1783 due to the Rocks Road, but out of that money £225 was the Goveroment lalance, £216 for subscriptions, £683 short borrowed, total £1134, not lmmedi'atelyavailable, leaving £654 toeontinue the work, which has been reduced by payments. Now in tie face of this it br comes very important to raise aa soon as possible the £683 short borrowed to prevent the chance of stopping for tbe want of available funds, In cogitating over the way to ni?e ur portion, the only part, which, as a City °ouncillor, had anything to do with, I saw Chree ways. Ist, We have already power *n the original Rocks Road loan to raise i£looo and we had only to raise our power and get it. But we had pledged ourselves not to do so, and I was not prepared to commit a breach of faith, therefore it was inadvisable. 2 ad. We could vote it from the general fucd. That meant so much less to the wages fuud for improvement?, and in tbe ca^e of men wanting employment, I did not think this advisable. Th<) third was the surplus at the credit of the Government fund, which I knew to be a profit earned, as at March 31, IS ( J2, there was to credit £526 14s 6.1, and at March 31, 1893. there was a credit balance of £977 5* (id or a profit of £432 9s for the year, so I proposed to take £300 from this fnnd towards the £462 owing by the Council to the Hocks lload fund, which was curied. That it was legal Section 303, Municipal Corporations Act, ISSIj, proves, " A separate account shall be kept of all moneys received, which shall be charged as follow* : With Mich sum to be transferred to the interest and sinking fund account as shall besullicient to pay interest and sinking fund, payable on any loan raised for the estab; lishuicnt of the gasworks, with all cost ol maintaining the gasworks in good repair and all the expenses connected with supplying and making gas ; with any surplus remaining, wLijh the Council is htieby empowered to trni sfir to the credit of the general account.' Note, section 202 leaves it optional toyrovide a silking iui d. In our case none k.s been provided, hence there is no piymcnt to be pad to i r , nrd that we have i etc d according- to all precede! t of corporation gaswuiks iv Britain I will show: M-iEcbett-r gasworks in I*Sl paid over to tbe improvement committee £10,000, and iv 1802 r.o lers a aim than £55,f..5>j ; l'ui.~l*-y gasworks laid over t) the berouyh fu:.d* £11163, since ISS3 £26,000 has been go p.-id; Cove;. try gasworks paid iv nil of rates in three years £7;iS3; in IS'J2 Briton gasworks transferred tbe whole i f the year's i:< t profits, £16 325,inaidof rate.-; Wijrnn £12,uOltut the same time; Nottingham £2012, the ti tA sk ce being the property of corporations £25,000, Leicester £21 000 in one year, West Bronwich in 12 years £IG,-100. I could multiply it stances, but they are quite enough to show nny reasonable man that we who supported the transfer of the £310 were not creating- a precedent, but following them, and in d"irg ff 1 , stowing tl c w?.y, with co increase of rater, with the rcduciioii of the price of £hs to the lowest poiut in New Zealand, how to reclaim the IS rcrcs of mudflat belonging to the city; how to n;uke a carriage drive xom d the Britannia Heights ; how 'o niako Nehon the beauty spot of the southern sea&, aud deserve no censure, but the tlanka of the ratepayers of the city. One word more, I have served in the City Council for three years ; the first two years a leader in the Colonist commended the City Council for the improvement and cleanliness of the city and the reduction of tbe overdraft from 42801 to £1668 or £1133. During this last year ending Match 31, 1853, since