ELECTRIC POWER SCHEME.

Southland Times, Issue 22999, 19 September 1936, Page 9

ELECTRIC POWER SCHEME.

To the Editor.

Sir, —Mr Carswell wants to give the public an opportunity of studying my methods. So do I. He quotes my words: “It was a pleasure to see the board in a position to : lake a reduction in rates.” I still am pleased. He again quotes me: “Even a school child can see that the whole scheme is hopelessly insolvent.” I did think that when I wrote those words, and now after going further in the question I am absolutely certain.

For those who are wavering as to how to vote, I would again draw attention to the fact that the average income from sale of power for the eight years from 1929-1936 was £112,300 per annum. Now, the average rates collected over the same period were £45,878 per annum. Admitting that the rate has been reduced slightly the last year or two, owing no doubt to the fact that nothing has been paid to renewal fund or nothing to general reserve fund, anyone would know that a limited company whose income was £112,000 a year having to draw on fresh capital to the amount of close on £46,000 per annum would immediately go into liquidation. Yet Southland has staggered along with the motto “What we have, we hold,” and paid over £500,000 as deficiency rates. Mr Carswell also quotes cash which the board had in hand at a recent date, but to quote Mr Nash, “It’s gone to London!” and a good bit more should have gone with it, which accounts for the fact that to-day we are asked to pay a reasonable sinking fund of £4 2/- per cent. That, in my opinion, finally kills the whole scheme as a financial success. I may remind Mr Rutledge that the figures quoted by myself in yesterday’s issue were the Power Board’s own figures taken from the Local Bodies’ Handbook. Sir, I desire to thank you for this further opportunity of stressing the urgent need to quit the scheme while we have the offer. —Yours, etc. HUGH RITCHIE. Invercargill, September 18, 1936.

To the Editor.

Sir, —While antagonism to the Government’s honest, prompt and undoubtedly advantageous offer to relieve Southlanders of an everlasting burden is being roused by a few, it is the intention of the writer to stick out for the welfare of Southland ratepayers generally. The only material trouble is that there may be a number of ratepayers easily led astray from their own interests b ytalk, and before their minds have time to think they sign away their privileges. Then for the remainder of their lives they console themselves by lamenting. It will sopn be too late for them to make a wise and advantageous decision. For your own sakes don’t be led astray. It is you yourselves that will have to pay the piper if the Government’s offer is turned down. Our local papers in their leading articles give you honest, fair and sound advice. Don’t be led astray even with 50 times as much talk, but vote for Government control. —Yours, etc EARNEST JACK* Invercargill, September 18, 1936.

To the Editor. Sir, —A number of outlying districts have heard two speakers on behalf of the board. One, although not a member of the board spoke ably on its behalf. The other in his desire to show vigour as a junior member of the board was free in his criticism of the motives and maturity (or lack of maturity) of others and could scarcely refrain from profanity. The Government’s offer to reduce the price per unit for the first 42 units to 61d was stated to be nullified by the guarantee, but there appeared to be no fear of the propounded increase of revenue due to radio sets being included in the same guarantee. The position of the nonreticulated area has been before the legislature time and again, and now the Government offers to clean the position right up. Now ratepayers who denounced Mr A. W. Rodger and the scheme have suddenly become converts. It is a pretty picture of flowers at the grave and one might well say: “No flowers by request.” If the board has not had a fair spin, wha’t about the originators? I put a face bar on anyone who might accuse me of being a scurrilous and anonymous writer by mentioning the anonymous and scurrilous skit from a newspaper about “Comrade Savage” read at these meetings.—Yours etc., AN AMUSED ORIGINAL CANVASSER. Waipahi, September 18, 1936.

To the Editor.

Sir, —I was surprised to see by Tuesday’s paper that Messrs Smith and Farrant had refused Mr McChesney’s challenge to debate on a public platform the pros and cons of the PowerBoard question. Surely in Invercargill there are halls available besides Smith’s Hall which they say is booked up to date. I am satisfied that an interested audience would be pleased to contribute to hire of same. If the benefits of Government control are so far-reach-ing as the Petition Committee aided by Mr Nash would lead us to believe, are they acting in the best interests of the province, of which we are all proud, in refusing with such a paltry excuse to meet the delegates of the Retention Committee in open debate?

In your criticism of the Power Board circular you made light of the board’s offer to hand over their scheme to the Government provided it reduced power costs 10 per cent. You stated an amount of £lO,OOO or £ll,OOO per year was at stake. If you had been fair, you would have pointed out that owing to the ever-increasing sales of electricity a sum much greater than this amount was involved. I will endeavour to point out to “Earnest Jack” that the financial value to the Government of the Southland Power Board is emphasized by the fact that the Minister of Finance himself carries the Government banner. We may safely assume that if the Government’s offer is rejected it will approach us with a much better proposition in the near future.— Your, etc., ANTI-POTHOLE. Kennington, September 17, 1936.