CAROLINE BAY EXPENDITURE.

Timaru Herald, Volume CV, Issue 160, 28 September 1916, Page 5

CAROLINE BAY EXPENDITURE.

To the Editor ;of tlie "Timam Herald." Shr, —Councillor Murpliy's explanation of tlie expenditure at Caroline ■bay is illuminating. Mr Cray stated that Councillor iVlurphy would not have expended money in building the G rosvenor Hotel if it had not oeen lor tlie Caroline Bay Asociation, and Councillor Murphy endorsed this. According to Councillor Murphy's reasoning as applied to Caroline Bay expenditure, lie oouid not have' expended anyth,ng in building the Grosvonor liyt-cl, as in his view money borrowed and spent belongs to the public, and there is no liability on tlie borrowers to repay it. As there could be no receipts " from the. Grosvenor Hotel before it was in exis!;ence, it follows that he could not have expended anything on it, and that the public found the money: Tlie question now arises, should not the hotel belong to the Borough Council as representatives of . the public? If not, why not? Councillor Murphy says that the £2500 loan lor tlie Bay should not be included in the Council's expenditure there, but he knows better than that. He is quite well aware tli.it the £2500 has to be repaid by the Council, and that it is expenditure by them just the same as if it were bank overdraft. He also complains that interest and sinkirg fund are paid by the Council out of Bay receipts. How else would they be paid ? Xf Councillor Murphy had a loan would he not pay interest and spiking fund out of'his receipts? Councillor Murphy's arguments are too tlnn, and I would advise him when next he blossoms out as a financial genius to engage the services of a new assistant.—l am; :eta i ! . COMMON-SENSE.