CR. WALTER REPLIES.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 24, 28 January 1914, Page 5

CR. WALTER REPLIES.

j jTo The Editor Stratford Post.] j ! Sir, —The unfortunate part'of writ-j ing to you is that one never knows when he can finish ; therefore I must crave a little, more space, as CT. -Richards is so very persistent in his determination not to understand what 1 have previously written. -My advocacy of the license is fully justified by the position of County ratepayers m the area covered by the Act, the Borough never having considered them when making the agreement with the Company; consequently, there are many wishing to get current hut cannot, while others are connected who have no idea how they will be treated when idie agreement terminates. Cr. -Richards is not satisfied with me lor referring him to a County lesolution in answer to a query of his, and takes up a lot of space about it. lie mist know that it is not lor me to defend County resolutions in the mess and • when entering this controversy I was particularly careful at the beguiling of my first letter to make it plain that I was only giving ir.y view d the County side, 'll it will relieve Jus feelings 1 can tell him we were assured that the license will state plainly that everything reverts back to the County whenever they exercise their right of taking over the plant, and no goodwill ’lias to be paid for anything. In accusing me of lamentable ignorance over the goodwill bogey Cr. Richards 'is so fond of trotting,out, he is guilty of mere pretence, fu a former letter I stated plainly that I was not in favor of paying goodwill, but thought the Company should run out their terra, i and to avoid stagnation until then .1 ■advocated an agreement between Borough and County. As regards my statement “that if the Borough and County could come to an agreement before the license is issued there will not be a penny to pay for goodwill,” both Mr Kirkwood and Mr Richards I misunderstood it. It means that the jCounty could recommend to the Minister that they should have the right of taking over the plant on the day the Borough concession ends instead of in ,21 years’ time. Of course I recognise that the resolution may have to be 'modified elsewhere before the. Company would accept the alteration. What possible chance is there of tiie Company receiving any goodwill if the above course was carried out? .11 things are allowed to drift along by the aloofness of the Borough it is hard to say what terms the County will have to agree to before they are able to obtain current for their ratepayers. It will be too late then to see the folly of having two concerns in a small district like this. From the day the Borough representatives waited on the County Council my endeavour lias been to keep the district under one license. It is easy and popular to rant about “the rights of the people,” “down with companies,” etc., but what is best for the district is eventually most beneficial for the people, and I still firmly believe it is worth a lot of thought, bow to work out something agreeable to all that will keep us under one license. Few of us as yet realise what a huge benefit in the near future a powerful electrical concern will be, supplying cheap power and light over the whole district, and I think it’s up to the Borough to got off their Jiigh horse and help it forward. The one and only blockage to progression is the Borough’s attitude to the Company’s plant at the termination of their agreement, which after all may be summed up: “How much of the plant would probably not be needed to carry on the business in Borough and County?” L venture to say it would be a very small proportion and would receive very little value when valued. Therefore, as a business proposition, is it worth hanging up everything so long for such a small prospective gain on the plant? The loss to the district of having perhaps two concerns running in the future when one would he very much better for all, is hard to estimate. 1 do not think the County can do any more for their constituents; (it is in the Minister’s hands, but I should like him to go fully into the question and suggest something agreeable to all, to remove the present stagnation. I sincerely thank Messrs ilvirkwood and Richards for their courtesy to me, and an sure however much wo may continue to differ on this subject, the friendly chats we have tojgether when we meet, will not cease.— 1 am, etc,

EDWARD WALTER