ALL THROWN OUT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 63, 20 March 1913, Page 5

ALL THROWN OUT.

THE BOROUGH LOANS.

INTERVIEW WITH THE MAYOR

Somewhat of a sensation was created in Broadway at about 8 o’clock last evening when it was noised about that the loan proposals had one and all been turned down. Throughout the day, the polling had been quiet, but fairly heavy., and some two-thirds of the ratepayers recorded their votes, (t was noticeable that the ratepayers From the southern end were in full force, and that motor ears and other vehicles were plying in that direction. Mr P. Skoglund, chief returning officer, and Mr G. W. Mills, had a busy time, and their prompt announcement of the results was an exceedingly creditable piece of work. The results are :—•

THE MAYOR’S MESSAGE. To those who have been intimately connected with the loan scheme', the first thing that comes to mind is the amount of labour expended from which no immediate result will accrue. When interviewed by a reporter of the “Stratford Evening Post” this was the first thing touched upon by His Worship. “After all the work that has been done by the Council during the past twelve months,” he said, “J think it is very disappointing. There is no alternative now, but for the Borough to go on as in the past, and carry out the work out of revenue. WHAT THE POLL SHOWS. “If the poll shows anything,” continued Mr Kirkwood, “it clearly indicates from the number of informal votes that were cast, that the ratepayers had not a thorough grasp ol the method of voting. Also in this direction it is quite possible that a number of ratepayers who wished to vote in the affirmative, under a misapprehension voted in the negative, and vice versa. In case cf this taking place, of course, the:e would be no indication of this in the ballot box.” WHY THEY TURNED IT TOWN. His Worship concluded: “No doubt there are many reasons that have tended to make the ratepayers turn down the whole of the proposals, and possibly the stringency of the money market at the present time would be fine of these. However, in this direction I am of the opinion that wo should have been able to borrow the money at a reasonable rate of interest, if not immediately, within a reasonable time. According to the Act, if some of 1 this money is not appropriated within two years, the authority lapses. I may . say - that if either of the water or the drainage loans had been carried, it would have so considerably relieved the pressure on the general revenue that money would have been available out of rates to have carried out a good deal of work in the shape of streets improvements.” J THE MAYOR SUMS UP.

Finally Mr Kirkwood said ;“1 did not anticipate for a moment that the ratepayers would sanction the whole of tire loan, while on the other hand it was hardly to lie expected that the whole of the proposals would he turned down. I was sanguine enough to believe that the drainage and water issues, totalling £16,000, would he carried. However the mandate of the ratepaw-s is paramount and must be accepted as final. The majority of votes by which all the proposals were lost may I think he taken as an indication that it would be useless to bring loan questions before the ratepayers again for some time to come. Possibly a small loan might Ire sanctioned for the purpose of duplicating the pipe line from the headworks of the water supply. A committee recently set up by the Borough 1 Council to inquire into the water pres- ' sure made a recommendation to the Council to have this work carried out, ■ and it is undoubtedly a work that will have to be faced in the near future. As to the position of the borough now that the loan proposals have been rejected there is no alternative but to carry on as far as possible out of revenue. The Council could, if it thought fit, carry out watoi or diainago works without referring the matter to a ratepayers’ poll, but in face of the result of the poll it is questionable if such would be done. However, the increase of rents from serves during the last twelve months | would pay 5 per cent interest on £lO,-' 000, so that if this amniv.it was spent on, necessary works it would not mean I an increase at all in rates. The in-j crease in rates consequent on the carrying of loan proposals would no doubt have a very material bearing at the poll yesterday in bringing the ratepayers to their decision, and in all probability it will bo necessary in the future when i dealing with loan proposals to adopt | the system of rating for special areas. I This would mean that those only who would get the benefit of the work "Ot’ldj provide the rates to pay interest on | the money expended. I believe fi at the I increase of rates would bo the mam factor causing the rejection < f the loan scheme. 1 do not Know whether those who favoured the bridge loan plumped for flat part of the loan, # hut if such' was the case it would make considerable difference to the other issues. To | sum up, I am disappointed that the water and drainage loans w*ve not carried, and while 1 do not tlfnk rhr.t the host interests of the borough have been served by the rejection of those issues, nevertheless tho rnaj viiy must inle ■ and the decision of the poll must be ■ l ( accepted with equanimity.’

For Agn’st Majority Inf’l. Agn’st Streets . 141 280 39 139 Drainage 134 286 40 ’ 152 Water-worJ is 165 255 38 90 Bridge . 182 254 20 75