ELECTRIC POWER SCHEME.

Southland Times, Issue 22993, 12 September 1936, Page 5

ELECTRIC POWER SCHEME.

To the Editor.

Sir, —Messrs J. W. Smith and H. J. Farrant in a letter in yesterday’s issue state that the estimated annual rate to carry on Monowai was (presumably in their opinion) £87,000 (period not clear).

The same J. W. Smith, in another letter in the same issue, puts the annual Power Board deficiency (or rate) down at £40,000 (for a period of five years).

Mr A. Le H. Hoyles (member of board) in same issue said annual power deficiency was £20,000 (for five

years). Looks as though Messrs Smith and Farrant should again consult their “business doctor.” For the information of Messrs Farrant and Smith, I beg to state that the board's revenue (exclusive of rates) for the year ended March 31, 1936 was £146,758. My authority is the board’s balance-sheet which bears the certificate of the Auditor and ControllerGeneral of New Zealand.—Yours, etc., JOHN T. CARSWELL,

Chairman, Southland Electric Power Board Invercargill, September 11, 1936.

To the Editor.

Sir,—Mr A. le H. Hoyles in a letter in yesterday's issue says, “With the exception of about £ 16.000 allowed for depreciation, the full original value of the entire undertaking (Power Scheme) is included in the Board’s assets of £2,000,000.” The Board’s balance-sheet audited, and certified by the Controller and Auditor-General, discloses the following position; £ (a) Value of headworks, reticulation (Power Scheme) Less depreciation 1,539,715 (b) Stocks on hand 23,572 (c) Liquid Assets— Cash in Sinking Fund 400,826 Cash in reserve 90,425 Sundry debtors 21,932 £2,076,470 Note the cash assets. Mr Hoyles asks the question: Would anyone in the ordinary course of business offer original cost value for a plant 12 to 14 years old? The reply is that a 12-year-old plant, and going concern, with nearly 11,000 clients and an annual income of over - £140,000, is worth much more in the course of business than the same plant new, but with no clients and no income.—Yours, etc., JOHN T. CARSWELL, Chairman, Southland Electric Power Board. Invercargill, September 11, 1936.

To the Editor.

Sir, —I do not think Mr John Fisher’s letter in this morning's issue should pass without notice. I feel sore at the thought that those whom I had looked upon sis sound fellows should be guilty of sending me such a circular, and I trust that as Mr Fisher suggests they may later repent. A public body man who cannot restrain his feelings of partisanship should retire from public life. It would be interesting to know if the board members as a whole were consulted before the issue of the document. I know of at least one instance in the preliminary stages of the scheme when the members’ names were appended to a printed document though all had not signed it. Let us hope that all the board members were consulted re the circular. We have Mr Hoyles’s letter and there should be others. If a public company after 18 years had failed to meet expenses even after over-capitalizing the concern to the extent of 25 per cent, would Mr Fisher consider it a good sound business? With the great advances now being made in the development of power there is every prospect that the board’s scheme will be out of date long before the loan could be repaid at 2J per cent. Steam is making great strides and who can foretell the place of the Diesel in 20 years’ time. It is time we paid our way and gave our grandchildren a chance to kick for themselves. The long term mortgage will yet prove a curse. Though I have never kicked at paying county and city rates levied for the board I think ratepayers should welcome the chance of ridding this province of' a heavy load of debt, and thus make it a better security for any other loan required.—Yours, etc., A RATEPAYER. Invercargill, September 9, 1936.

To the Editor.

Sir, —The undated circular marked “Urgent” addressed to Southland members of Parliament and posted by the Power Board to Southland ratepayers for voting purposes, may have a very misleading effect if attention is not directed thereto. Many ratepayers will no doubt have signed this prior to the receipt of their proper voting papers on the referendum from the Registrar, and as this document calls for a declaration that, this is the only vote recorded by the ratepayer on the proposal, it is possible that they may refrain from exercising the vote in the belief that this has already been recorded. Kindly make this clear.—Yours, etc. H.J.F. Invercargill, September 11, 1936.