CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 12817, 17 July 1912, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE.

TWO PLUMBERS

(To the Editor of the Herald.) Sir, — According to the report of the last meeting of the Borough, Council, it appears that the licensed plumbers and the builders associations do not like the idea, of the Council engaging two journeymen tradesmen to do the plumbing work m connecting up houses with tha sewerage system for those ratepayers — who alone have to foot the bill and who may prefer to have such work done by the Council. Everybody knows that the reason for such action on the Council's part, was because it became known that this particular work was costing householders much more than the "Council had led them to suppose it would cost when the first loan for sewerage was raised, and therefore it was clearly its plain duty to prove by actual experiment what the cost of such work should be; and I think the Council did the right thing . m this case, and should be supported m its decision, at anyrate, until such cost has been definitely ascertained, to the satisfaction of the ratepayers who have to pay for all., this compulsory work, in> addition; to having had to find the large sum. required to pay for the water supply and sewerage systems, being conjointly necessary to complete the whole affair. It : seems to me, that the two or three thousand disillusioned ratepayers should have the first call on the Council's help. Had the work referred to not been a compulsory one, the local tradesmen would have been quite justified m protesting against the Council's action, and are now en titled to" some praise for pointing out m their statement to that body, that m some cases) the Council (through its employees) had not carried out this important part of the- scheme m accordance with its own by-laws, at the same time the Council's officials insisted upon private plumbers strictly doing so, such proceeding being most unfair to them when being called upon to give prices for similar work. However, this lapse having been pointed out, a repetition will probably not occur again. The local tradesmen assert that their charges are reasonable, and that they do not combine with each other to keep them up. That may bo so, but it was /very apparent tliat the deputationists at this, their second visit, were united enough m trying .to gain their object, namely, a monopoly and profits, and were able to present a statement of their wrongs and alleged rights, that caused even 'His "Vyorship the Mayor and all the councillors. _to v hesitate m giving a prompt adverse reply, and so the matter was adjourned for further consideration m committee. It is generally understood that business is brisk m Gisborne, and that plumbers and builders have plenty of, work, and when such is the case we all know, prices and charges are likely to harden or improve, from a tradesman's point of view, so that really the advent of ono or two fresh plumbers m the place should not alarm . the local people at all, as the twenty or thirty of the duly qualified ones now m the town, will, I, am sure, still be able to. get a decent living even without being troubled with any of the new branch or line of work they are disputing, over ; for did not the readers of your enlightening journal, sir, read the evidence give m a case recently the Court, that the profits from one Gisborne plumbing business last year was £600, a previous year the profit shown was £1500, and the year the water was first laid on it amounted to £3000. Most of the struggling ratepayers would, I think, regard these amounts as being not at all "bad ones if coming their way. I- rather fancy that this evidence was given by one of the leading members of the deputation that waited on the Council with a list of some of the troubles the members of this particular trade were suffering from. While on this matter, I may say that m looking over the Borough balance sheet recently published, m a statement of expenditure for the last year up to March 31st appears the. item, sanitation £2206, Is 4d. I only draw attention, to this because the amount as shown for this complete service approximates closely to the amount /that will probably be charged the ratepayers annually when all the house connections are completed, for simply the qiiaritity of water required for flushing m connection with, the sewerage service, which, together with the water service, m their entirety will •by that time- have cost the ratepayers I ■expecti' fully £200,000, on which amount, of course, interest will have to be paid for a good number ■of years. It does indeed seem a curious business, that the charge of £1 a year to each householder for this simple flushing service, ' will about equal the whole cost of the present complete sanitary service for a full year, Svhich is now paid for out of the general ! rate,ynb one pound a year extra being demanded for anything. To a simple-mind-ed persoii, it 'seems that it, is the rate-' payers' mainly thit need 'to be protected against the. constant demands and extra ■.charges and fees of all sorts, and the granting, ol " monopolies to those who have .no particular right or need for them* Finally, ,it- might be, suggested, if the Council should be induced to reiieve maters ,to fcome extent, and modify and make a little easier some of its by-laws — which were mostly imported from Wellington, it is said. I trust it -Will, m its wisdom, kindly not overlook the' £1 a year above" referred to, but abolish it altogehter, failing that relief,! I fear (or hope) the persons most concerned: will not vote for any more loans; and as the borrowing of some other people's money is thought to be a fashionable and quite a proper thing to do, we should then run the: risk of being described by outsiders as "not a progressive ■ community," '■■ a contingency most painful to think of, all land speculators will agree. — I am etc, A RATEPAYER.