THE ELECTRIC LIGHT QUESTION

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 48, 21 February 1912, Page 5

THE ELECTRIC LIGHT QUESTION

(To the Editor “Stratford Post.”) Sir, —lii reference to the footnote attached to my letter signed “Ratepayer,” re Mr. Masters’ statement that' the borough lighting bill Avas £3OO at present, and also that our lighting bill Avould cost £6OO in tAvo years, I give the figures beloAV from the 1911 balance-sheet of the Borough Council; —Street lighting £lB9, Council Chamber £5, Fire Brigade £B, Library £l2, Town Hall £47; total £261. I contend that the sum of £47 should lie deducted from this amount, as this sum Avas repaid to the Council by the persons using the hall, Avho pay indirectly for the light they consume, and 1 have further taken an opinion on this matter, and it is to tho effect that while the hall is sboAving a profit Ave may take it that tho amount avo pay the Electric Light Company "is beimr refunded to us in full, therefore our lighting bill is £261, loss £47, equal to £2l4—not £BOO, as Mr. Masters maintains. Further, 1 say that each additional street light only costs ns £2 5s for current, and the other £2 15s is for erection, AA’hich amount avg would still lie required to pay if avg OAvned the concern. In reference to the £6OO, I think that this statement is extravagantly overdraAvn, as the Avhole street lighting of HaAvera only costs £l5O per annum, and no one will contend that HaAvera is badly illuminated, and that Stratford should cost four times as much is ridiculous. I maintain that Mr. Masters has made the ratepayers case out just as bad as possible, and left the impression on the minds of the ratepayers that ho has made a good case for the company. Although 1 do not I'or one moment suggest ho has intentionally done so, I do say that his figures leave room for correction.—l am, etc.. RATEPAYER. [Why does not “Ratepayer” admit bo was inaccurate? Our footnote merely corrected his figures to the total now used—viz, £26l—Ed, “Stratford Post.”]