CORRESPONDENCE

Southland Times, Issue 18929, 1 May 1923, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE

Letten must be written In ink and on one ■ide of the paper. Unless a signature, not necessarily for publication, accompanies a letter as a guarantee of good faith it will not be considered. An asterisk attached to the signature to a published letter denotes that some portion has been deleted by the Editor, a right which is exercised in questions of public policy, libel, good taste and fair play. THE POWER BOARD MINIMUM. To the Editor. Sir, —When the Electric Power Scheme was first mooted we were told that it would boom Southland; that cheap light, heat ?nd power would make us the most envied people in New Zealand. If the apostles of this doctrine have faith in the scheme, why impose a minimum? The incoming Power Board must not overlook the fact that there are a large number of poor farmers who are liable to be rated to make up any loss. Is it not more 'quitable that they should have the option of taking £3 worth of current thereby deriving some benefit from the scheme, than by debarring them by the original minimum. Another .point which critics seemed to have missed (unless perhaps they have not as much faith as we were led to believe) is that the lower minimum does not lebar the man who can afford it from taking all the current he requires. As one of those who canvassed for the scheme three years ago, I may say that the £l5 minimum was my greatest hindrance. Practically everyone I called on was in sympathy with the scheme andwould, I believe, have guaranteed £5, but at that time I could not it.

I quite agree with Mr Watson’s letter of Afril 26, till he gets to the fourth fact, and then we differ. Why should a small farmer be compelled to take more current than he can use or pay for, any more than a town dweller.

As for the rates, they are all assessed on «be same basis and, in many cases, the £lO man can pay his more easily than the £5 man.

At the beginning of the campaign Mr A. W Rodger claimed that rich and poor, backblocks and otherwise would be treated a’ike, and no doubt they will as far as rates are concerned, so why not current

If the Power Board sell the current at the lowest possible price and make the rate fairly high, it will do what Mr Rodger hoped for, but could not possibly have achieved w'th the higher minimum i.e., put the benefits of electricity into every home in Southland. Leave the minimum low and that will gain consumers afterwards what was looked on as a luxury becomes a necessity, and there will be no need of a minimum. I am, etc., J. GRAHAM. Glencoe, April 30. To the Editor. Sir, —In your issue of April 23 of Mr Rodger’s meeting at South Invercargill, he • Mr Rodgers) is stated to have suggested •?s the method to be pursued by the new Board, among other things, to ascertain ♦he revenue of each distribution line and proceed with its erection only if it brings in its quota of revenue and not otherwise. Which, he goes on to say, might obviate the necessity for any rate at all. Now this result is a consumation devoutly to be wished, but will Mr Rodger, if he gets control, stick to it, or is it only an election cry? It seems so different from his policy in the earlier stages of the Board. I am satisfied that it is the only sound line of procedure even if it spells the abandoning the whole scheme. In ascertaining the revenue which is likely to accrue it will be necessary to assess each consumer’s contribution at the minimum that he may require. Mr Rodger has stated at different meetings in Invercargill that that amount is about £6, and while he thinks that if he went round the farmer he could get them to make it £2O, that would be worthless for an assured revenue, because whenever that guarantee expired they would without fail drop to the minimum which serves their purpose. This would be the more likely to happen, as I understand there is no intention of raising the contribution in the townships above three pounds. The result then would be, the house of one side of the road would be asked to pay three pounds and the one on the other side of the road twenty pounds. Yet all under the same Board with the same voting power. This was the factor which compelled the old Board to reduce the minimum to three pounds and so treat all alike. If the minimum is to be raised to be raised to one section in the community, let it be raised to all. The city dweller can just as easy install a number of electrical curios that he does not want, as can the man in the country, and if neither do it they will come even in the end for the rate. Will Mr Rodger take the trouble to state definitely how far he is prepared to go in o trying out his fifth proportion stated

above, and also what attitude he will adopt regarding the three pound minimum for the country districts. He will earn the thanks of the Southland County ratepayers in view of the election near at hand. I am, etc., ELECTOR. THE COUNTRY CUSTOMER. To the Editor. Sir, —The letter from "Country Bumpkin” this morning is short and to the point. Of all the poor weeping-eyed crowd I have ever met commend me to a few of the Invercargill shopkeepers. The- £9OOO per week is a champion effort of compound addition. If this town ever loses that amount per week, we can hoist a large “To I et” sign in Dee and Tay streets. It is ’.'’ally a scandalous state of affairs that ‘hose selfish shoopkeepers at Bluff, Winton, Gore, etc., are doing some business. I hope that now our poor down-trodden retailers have got their Saturday afternoon and late night back they will try to get "dear old Bill” to pass a law prohibiting anyone .si ending money out of Invercargill. I hope we shall, the next Saturday we re-open, see the mighty army pouring up from the station each with a share of the £9OOO to blow off. I would like to suggest bringing out the pie cart to help to cope with the rush. The Wednesday champions combined choir will sing "Oh, dry those tears!” I am, etc., TOWN BUMPKIN.