THE LIGHTING QUESTION.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 137, 2 August 1911, Page 6

THE LIGHTING QUESTION.

(To'-tii'e; Editor/ StPatiVji^/'Tost.”) Sir, —yVl:on urging that the report ol the ; subcommittee 1 dealing with the electric; light question' should 1)0 published I cjid not anticipate such a reply as made by the Mayor and reported in your columns as the result of an interview. The Mayor’s reply is surely not at all likely to give the ratepayers confidence in the negotiations and handling ol the natter by the Courted. The goodwill can have nothing whatever to do with the valuation of the syndicate’s piant and if the fact of making known xhe amount of goodwill it is suggested should ho paid “would prejudice the arbitrators in their work,” then the sooner some other method is put into operation the hotter. However,, lor my part,-1 do not sco how the arbitrators could bo affected in the matter, and the valuation of tho plant should not require tho employment of very high experts to arrive at a fair valuation. From the Council’s point of view the statement made by the Mayor can only mean that if the arbitrators know the amount of tho goodwill they might possibly make their valuation higher than they would have done otherwise. This being so the deduction is that the goodwill is too high. Whatever the suggested goodwill is thq syndicate have signified their, acceptance of it, therefore they could not raise any objection of “prejudice’’ on the part >of the arbitrators. Now, as to the arbitrators: Would not valuators have boon the correct term to use in respect of the experts employed to value tho plant, seeing that there is the contingency of the ratepayers not agreeing to the terms arrived at by the Conned? By calling the valuators arbitrators it would suggest that the Council take it for granted that when tho valuation is mads tho last word has been said and the whole thing fixed. To conclude, I hold to the opinion that tho refusal of the Mayor (or is it the whole Councillor a majority of the Council?) to publish the suh-commit-tOe’s report is doing and will do more to ’prejudice, the position than any other course, that .might he taken by a well-moaning .but misguided public body.—l am, etc., RATEPAYER. Stratford, • July 31st, 1911. ..i . ' PROXY VOTING IN CO-OPERA-TIVE DAIRY FACTORY COMPANIES. (To the Editor, “Stratford Post.”) Sir, —The abolition of the above pernicious system of voting, which obtains at the Midhirst Co-operative Dairy Co., >, at the present time stirring tho minds of a good many shareholders, and with very good cause. One gentleman, a shareholder, gave notice ol motion for (he discontinuance ni proxy 1 voting sonjc ..considerable time before

the annual meeting Ijit-t Monday—the subject hud been well talked over in the meantime —and the majority were agreed that the system must go, but what do we find at the eleventh hour? The chairman of the factory went to a local lawyer (so I am informed) and inquired (1 presume) as to whether the motion was in order, and at the meeting sprung a surprise on every one by reading this lawyer’s letter, which said that one of the Articles of Association —which of course had reference to proxy voting—would have to he rescinded before we could put another in its place. Now, considering our worthy chairman hits been

in tiih position for seven years, 11 is hard to realise that ho did not know enough about company law to have advised the mover ol the motion the proper way to go about the business in order to carry tins very necessary reform. The evils of proxy voting are very well known, and a man can be carried in at every election, by the aid of the other directors. lam informed that the chairman said at the meeting that ho had never made use of proxies. li tins is true then very many of us are under a misapprehension. Then, again, another reform is required; That is “one man one vote.” Of course this can never be carried until proxy voting is abolished. The chairman’s views on this question are, to say the least, somewhat peculiar. He said, if correctly reported, why should a man with one cow have equal voting power with a man , who has a hundred, and also he thought the system unjust. Surely the example he quoted is unjust. How many men are there running to the factory with the produce of one cow? The average number of cows, 1 should say, kept by most shareholders would bo perhaps about twenty to thirty, and their interests for the good of the factory is perhaps of more vital imi poftance to them than the man' with a hundred. For instance, I will quote the franchise adopted by the Government of this country; Every man has an equal voting power in electing a representative. It seems to me there is nothing democratic about Mr Brown’s views, rather would Ids voice not lie better raised for capital against labour? The system of “one man one vote,” I am told, obtains at two of the oldest factories in Taranaki, viz., Stratford and Ngarre. On the chairman being informed of this he is reported to have answered “Two wrongs don’t make one right.” What colossal wisdom was displayed in this answer! Take notice, you directors of Stratford and Ngaire, and find out your mistake ere it is too late. Apologising, Mr Editor, for the length of this letter, 1 am, etc., A.H.R. Midhirst, July 27th, 1911.