ELECTRIC POWER SCHEME.

Southland Times, Issue 22998, 18 September 1936, Page 9

ELECTRIC POWER SCHEME.

To the Editor.

Sir, —We have, as stated in this morning’s issue, received a very nice letter from Messrs Macalister Bros., acting for the Retention Committee, and incidentally for the Power Board, asking us to refer our figures to arbitration. We would remind the Retention Committee that we have already issued an invitation to the Power Board to dispute our figures through the columns of the daily press. The-public, being the judge, should have had the denial of our figures long ago; but we still maintain that they are indisputable. As the Retention Committee well knows, the votes are rolling in, and we are surprised to hear that there is now any case for them to put up after hearing Mr Nash. Can they, for instance, reconcile their printed statement advising the Invercargill ratepayers not to risk losing £15,000 when they know that the terms of supply to the city are not to be interfered with by the Government? We feel that the views expressed by the Retention Committee and ourselves are so far apart that no arbitration can possibly bring the parties to a common basis qf agreement. The Retention Committee’s chief plank has been hope for increased sales of electricity. Our argument throughout is founded on past performances of the board, taken from their own figures, as printed in the Local Bodies’ Year Book. We certainly added the sum of £40,000, which we consider necessary as a replacement or renewal fund—a fund that has not existed in the past. —Yours, etc. H. J. FARRANT, J. W. SMITH. Invercargill, September 17, 1936. To the Editor. Sir, —After the broadcast debate on Tuesday evening, listened to by many thousands, and published in full by The Southland Times, there is surely no occasion for us to meet Mr McChesney and members of the Retention Committee at Wyndham on Saturday, despite the fact that Mr McChesney magnanimously offers to provide transport and hall free for the purpose. We do not pose as public entertainers. Our purpose during the past six weeks has been to discover the truth and to pass the results on to the ratepayers in order that they should be fully acquainted with the facts, thus enabling them to determine how to vote. With this object in view we invited the chairman and members of the Power Board to meet us on the public platform, there to go into and elaborate on all the pros and cons of the question. Our invitation has never been accepted. Now, at the eleventh hour, when a big percentage of the ratepayers has already voted, Mr McChesney, instead of accepting our invitation, comes out with a challenge for us to meet members of the Retention Committee. As we stated before the thing is absurd. Regarding Mr McChesney’s offer to provide transport and hall free of charge, we ask who are the Retention Committee, and are the expenses of the said committee being paid, wholly or in part, by the Power Board? If these expenses are to be found by the rating powers of the board, we certainly decline to be in any way associated with the Retention Committee.—Yours, etc.

H. J. FARRANT. J. W. SMITH. Invercargill, September 17, 1936. To the Editor. Sir, —I want to give the public the opportunity of examining Mr IL Ritchie’s methods. For that purpose I will quote Mr Ritchie’s own words as published in the papers. First of all, I find Mr Ritchie speaks as follows: “It was a pleasure to see the board in a positon to make a reduction in rates.” Later I find the following statement coming from Mr Ritchie: “Even a school child can see that the whole scheme is hopelessly insolvent.” Then as to the likely demand for power Mr Ritchie wrote: “It is generally known that Monowai, as it now stands (6000 kilowatts), can and will supply the ordinary needs of Southland for years to come.” Subsequently Mr Ritchie says: “The province is only partly reticulated and we will be up to Monowai’s limit (11,000 kilowatts) say within five or six years time.” But wait! Mr Ritchie finds that any sensible person will see that if Monowai power is used to that extent the board will have an enormously increased revenue, power will be very cheap and the board will be in a powerful and unassailable financial position. So Mr Ritchie writes: “We cannot expect the sales from electricity to rise appreciably, should more power become available, as I am not aware that the board has a waiting list of would-be consumers.”

The public will draw its own conclusions from the quotations made above. Now the same tactics were adopted by Mr Ritchie in regard to the use of figures. I will conclude by setting out the following facts taken from the audited balance sheets:—(a) The board’s cash funds have risen from £262,000 in 1929 to £507,662 in March—nearly double, (b) In the year 1929 the board had a working overdraft of £87,000. This has been wiped off and there is now a credit balance of £9357, an improvement of £96,000 in 7 years, (c) The net revenue account showed an accumulated loss of £65,000 in 1929. There is a credit of £9700 this year—an improvement of £75,000 in 7 years, (d) The depreciation reserve shows cash in bank £16,411 and a further £11,867 brought to charge. Yet Mr Ritchie says “even a school child can see that the whole scheme is hopelessly insolvent.” Utter nonsense.— Yours, etc., JOHN T. CARSWELL, Chairman, Southland Electric Power

Board. Invercargill, September 17, 1936.

To the Editor.

Sir, —In the Public Works statement for year ended March 31, 1935, under the heading “General and Other Reserves” the Southland Electric Power Board amount is shown at £82,888. I think that must be a mistake because Mr IL G. Ritchie says the board’s General Reserve Fund is "nil.” The same Government publication shows that the loss for that year was only £14,946. The statement shows the total costs for the year (working expense, sinking fund, depredation and other capital charges) were £161,664 and the total revenue (exclusive of rates) was £146,718, the difference being the £14,946 stated above. —Yours, etc. D. RUTLEDGE. Invercargill, September 17, 1936.