THE POWER SCHEME.

Southland Times, Issue 22991, 10 September 1936, Page 7

THE POWER SCHEME.

To the Editor.

Sir, —In Wednesday’s issue you pubish a long panicky footnote to the report of opinions expressed by certain members of the Power Board at Tuesday’s meeting on The Southland Times’s partisan treatment of the present controversy. In footnote (4) in regard to your statement in the leading article of August 5 in which you tried to lead your readers to believe that Mr Hoyles was the only qualified accountant on the board, you now crayfish by saying that you qualified the statement by saying “as far as we knew.” Sir, an editor of a reputable newspaper should have made sure of his grounds before making such a satement. But not you, sir, you thought you saw an opportunity of belittling the board. Clean journalism?

Footnote (5) is devoted to my remarks on the letter of your correspondent ‘‘Earnest Jack.” You report me correctly in saying “that it must have been concocted in the editorial sanctum or by the Petition Committee.” You state you will be pleased to refer the letter to the Invercargill Magistrate to detennine its bona fides and if the letter was “written” by anyone connected by The Southland Times or on the Petition Committee. If you will read my remarks again you will find I used the word “concocted” not “written.” It is an old game getting someone to write or even sign a letter after it has been concocted. You are getting panicky, Mr Editor, x so we can leave our worthy Magistrate out of this. You then become quite theatrical (or is it hysterical) and say “The Southland Times will pay £2O to the Invercargill Crippled Children’s Society if it is found that the letter was written (note the word ‘written’) by anyone connected with The Southland Times or on the Petition Committee.”

Worthy as the above mentioned cause is may I suggest that instead The Southland Times hand its youthful Editor the £2O note and give a fortnight’s leave to enable him to travel over our wonderful province and learn for himself the untold resources of Southland and see for himself the vast opportunities ahead for the Southland electric scheme and then after he is convinced that he is on the wrong line in crying stinking fish he can purchase a volume entitled “The Ethics of Clean Journalism.”—Yours, etc., w. McChesney. South Invercargill, September 9, 1936. [The Invercargill Magistrate, with whom we have communicated, has kindly undertaken —if Mr McChesney accepts our suggestion—to satisfy himself whether the letter signed Earnest Jack” was written by anyone connected with The Southland Times or the Petition Committee or was “concocted” by anyone connected with The Southland Times or the Petition Committee. In other words he has undertaken to satisfy himself whether the letter was genuinely the work of a bona fide correspondent and whether it was in any sense inspired. Our proposition to Mr McChesney therefore stands. It is neither panicky, theatrical, nor hysterical; it is a newspaper’s defence against unwarranted and abusive attacks on its good faith; for, being bound to observe the anonymity of its correspondents, it can only defend itself through a tribunal of indisputable integrity such as is proposed—Editor, The Southland Times.]

To the Editor.

Sir,—Messrs H. J. Farrant and J. W. Smith have taken upon, themselves the grave responsibility of issuing a statement showing the annual charges which the Power Board will have to meet should the people decide to retain the scheme. On behalf of. the Board, I wish to say most emphatically that the statement of Messrs Farrant and Smith contains many inaccuracies and is therefore entirely misleading. For that reason the statement is strongly objected to, not only by members of the Board but by citizens who know and understand the facts. The gentlemen named may yet . become aware of the consequences of issuing a statement which, in the opinion of the Board, amounts to a biased representation of the position. I earnestly advise all ratepayers to carefully read the true statement of the position as set out in detail in the circular issued by the Board, which is now . in the course of post. An opportunity will be given to the ratepayers to learn the facts from the public platform, as a public meeting will be held in Invercargill at an early date.—l am, etc., JOHN T. CARSWELL, Chairman, Southland Electric Power Board. Invercargill, September 9, 1936.

To the Editor.

Sir, —I have just received the Power Board circulars issued in connection with the poll to be taken on the question of the Government taking oyer the Power Board assets and liabilities. I had just read the accounts of meetings held by members of the Power Board, and note that Mr McChesney stated at Seaward Downs that the campaign was to be a silent one, without propaganda on either side, and that as a board members had honoured this. I wonder what the board calls the circular which it has just issued? I understand the leaflet issued by the Government is a short, concise list of the points in their offer. To deal with the circular, which must have cost a fair sum to produce (and this I presume at the ratepayers’ exDense) — It states that the Government makes vague and indefinite promises, etc. Well, the Southlands Power Board has been doing this to some tune, also. The rate was only to last a few years and we were to have cheaper power soon, etc., etc., ever since the board came into existence Their somersaults from rates to no rates at two consecutive meetings, and then back to rates again should convince anyone that they are . incapable of forming a reasoned opinion on the future of the business. The circulars also state that “during the past years the ratepayers have paid £500,000 in rates . . . the opportunity to recover any portion of this sum will be lost if the undertaking is handed to the Government.” Does this mean that the board intends to give us a refund of rates paid at some future date? It sounds suspiciously like eyewash, as does most of the circular when analysed. In a maze of figures the circular gives glowing accounts of the assets of the board, but is strangely <■ silent as to liabilities.

It also refers to 'the question of renewing poles, and states that the initial cost was less than half the amount quoted by the opponents of retention for renewal within the next few years. Why not let us have the number

of poles and the cost of renewing each, including labour? Within a radius of half a mile from where this is written there are about 150 poles, and most of them are going at the ground line, and obviously will have to be renewed in about two or three years’ time. There must be many thousands more like them, as their life will be approximately the same all over, and this must involve a considerable sum if they are to be renewed when the ground line becomes dangerous. , The closing phrase of the circular says': “Remember, if you give your power scheme to the Government, it is gone FOREVER.” Is the Government going to move it to Wellington, or does Southland not form part of New Zealand? This is on a par with the whole of the circular, which seems to be an attempt to cloud the real issue. ‘ The only difference Government ownership will make will be to provide cheaper power, without meter rents or guarantees; and also without the rate which seems so small to the board, but which has been a heavy burden on many struggling farmers for years past. After careful perusal of the circular, and reading the speeches of members of the board, I hope that the ratepayers will emphatically vote for cheaper power and no rates or meter rents.— Yours, etc., RATEPAYER.

To the Editor.

Sir,—We read by the daily papers that Mr Carswell, chairman of the Southland Power Board, has had a meeting of ratepayers assembled from all parts of Southland. Why did the public not get an invitation to this meeting? Is it another of the hushhush methods the board has adopted of attempting to gull the public? We have heard full reports of the doings of the Government sale-supporters, and surely the board should have been in a position long before the eve of the referendum to place at least one convincing reason why Southland should retain Monowai. The board has changed its mind so often on policy matters that it will be amusing to see its final trump card played. As an unbiased ratepayer, I consider it most unfair of the board to withhold its propaganda until after the voting papers are issued, thus playing on the public’s credulity and giving no time for anyone to refute or disprove any statements made by the board. One must at least congratulate the committee which is supporting the sale to the Government on the very lucid and open manner in which it has placed the position before the public.—Yours, etc TAXPAYER. ‘