THAT ELECTRIC LICENSE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 2, 2 January 1914, Page 5

THAT ELECTRIC LICENSE.

STATEMENTS OR MISSTATE' MENTS?

[To The Editor Stratford Post.]

Sir,—Mr Robert Masters once again tills your columns with Jus mis-state-ments. The County Councillors did not voice their candid opinion of what they thought of the Borough Count-l’--action, as only one or two of them spoke on the matter, and whatever

ia minority of any body may think or say, such is not necessarily the opinI ion of the whole. The next point jtiiat the Chairman of the Electrical Snpn'y Company makes, is that, in i accusing him of ignorance, I displayled my own ignorance. Let us see • ;J accused him of displaying ignorance on the point of the license rendering I the deed of concession between the Company and the Council, nugatory. Ho denies that such is the case and to sustain his contention, says that the license docs not bear any date upon it. In making such a. statement, Mr Masters must have done so with the deliberate intention of leading your readers astray, as he must know that the license as prepared, was a draft license only, and that in any case the date would he from the time that the license was issued to the end of flic stated term of fortytwo years. A schoolboy would not resort to such a palpable subterfuge to got out of a difficulty and if Mr Masters maintains that he really made this statement in good faith, then 1 can only say that he displays on this particular matter more ignorance than 1 thought possible, liie Company certainly anticipated that the license would have been issued in the very near future, and had tile Borough Council not intervened,* the license in all probability would have borne the imprint of a definite date in the present year. Before the deputation went to Wellington the Government were not properly seized of tlie true position and it is chagrin ■at being foiled that now makes your correspondent so bitter! In the matter of the Company’s right, under the license, to take such land as they might require, Mr Masters does not deny this, for the reason that he cannot, but he raises the question of conditions, which have Do hearing on. the issue, as I quoted the clause from the license only to show that, "contrary, to Mr. Master’s contention, the issue of the license would affect tao deed of Concession. Farther on in his letter,,your Correspondent .states, ■‘The RCentd 1 H 4 ’'to be iskued under the Act of 1908, not under the Company’s Empowering Act, as Mr K’ kwood is laboring to instil into the minds of his readers.” Mr Masters’ assertion is quite contrary to fact, as I have never mentioned the Empowering Act, or referred to it in any way, and, having all the correspondence before them, I ask any reasonable person to say, sir. Whether I have done

<0 or not. The fact of the matter is untenable, and throughout the whole of the correspondence he has resorted to subterfuges in an endeavour to get himself out of difficulties. With reference to anonymous correspondents I make it a practice to treat them with the contempt they, under most circumstances, desewey—. 1 am, etc., W. P. KIRKWOOD, Mayor.