THE ACCOUNTANTS' REPORTS.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11487, 21 January 1903, Page 8

THE ACCOUNTANTS' REPORTS.

TO THK ZDITOa OF THI. PRESS. Sir,—Mr Hulme has evidently travelled my figures with a view to discredit their value as an equitable basis of adjustment. In converting borough trust accounts into a commercial basis fur comparison it must be evident to any accountant that there is room for a difference of opinion as to what should ba taken into account and what omitted. It is a matter of equity. Instancing some of Mr Hulme's figures, he evidently averages certain items on past years, otherwise his results could avt< be produced from the audited balance-sheets-I do not wish to inflict on the public more detail comparisons than are absolutely

Mr Hulme has thought well to include in the indebtedness oi Christehurch, under Table A. the Destructor loan, by transfer from Table D. It is of very little consequence, as the. loans are not poolable, but Mr Hulme has made an error of £104 in the interest thereon, and the works being of a reproductive nature, lie has omitted to give the city credit for income thereon. I am infornwd the city can now sell the power generated to great advantage.

I have already referred to Mr Hulnre's error over Table B, and will let that pass. In this table I took the unsaleable reserves in at unimproved Government value, thinking that as they are unsaleable my basis would be the most equitable to the lesser borooghs. Mr Hulme wishes to introduce improved values- Tire item is of very little importance, and benefits the city in the final results, but without explanation to the uninitiated the variation looks substantial. In valuing the saleable real estate, I obtained the values from the audited balance-sheets or borough officials. In the case of Sydenham, no values had been assessed in the balance-sheet, and my information was obtained from the Land Tax Department, and was subsequently checked by the Sydenham officials. One section they had entirely overlooked. The bathe -were rtsturned to me aa "not assessed." Mr Hulme now claims value for them. His other values do not correspond with the values given to me, hene«* little discrepancies. Mr Hulme has added to 'he Linwood liabilities £79 of trust moneys, which are held in the trust bank account, but. has omitted to credit the asset. ,

With regard to Table C, there is nothing in the audited balance-sheet of Sydenham to warrant Mr Hulme's reduction of my Public Works expenditure. I would point out that if he hae averaged past years or: any particular item, the same rule would have to apply throughout. I think my comparison of rates hereafter will be the best answer I can give upon this point. In justice to myself, however, I must protest against certain figures which appear in the Sydenham books withheld from me, and subsequently given to Mr Hulme. There is such an item of about £400.

Ai't-er all, the differences in details have not affected the position. If Mr Hulme will check hi.s own final figures he will lind that St. Aibans, according to his own showing, loses rates 6-643, not 16-64 d, and, compared with their gain of 3 42-64 d. as shown by him in Table B, St. Aibans is stiil v. gainer of 1 20-64 d. Of course, Ido not- agree with many of his figures, for the following reasons. According, to Mr Hulme, the general rate required by Sydenham to meet ordinary expenditure and works is 2 21-64 d, in whjch the scavenging is included. To this must be added interest on loans 1 18-64 d, and the total is 3 39-64 d. If so, why did Sydenham strike a rate for the current year "of 4 3-64 d, including special rate for loans, not including scavenging charges, which are equivalent to 62-64 d, or in all 5 l-64d? In L give the rat * s actually struck for 1902----1903:—•

It will be seen that my estimate is 42-64 d under the actual rate of Christchnrch, 16-64 d Sydenham, 24-64 d St. Aibans, and 1 17-64 d Linwood, whereas Mr Hulme's comparative estimates are, respectively, 51-64 d, 1 26-64 d, 1 24-64 d, and 1. 3164 d. In Linwood the rates are specially heavy this year, with a view to reduction of overdraft. Surely no further argument is necessary to show that my figures are much nearer a practical basis than Mr Hulme'e. —I am, etc., W. H. GUNDRY, F.I.A.N.Z. January 20th, 1903.

r oo en o » r (i ? : : ! i *■ :ee eo ee CO H* p. General Rate Struck for 1902-3. ■ * s g S 2 S 2 f" Special Hate for Interest on Loans. 01 »o m m o» to to 2 S 2 2 a. R*te Equivalent to Sanitation Ch&rge. m *• o> w ta m (-. m 2 g 2 2 CL Total. *> M K». &a fe y S *. 2^22 A Figure according to Mr Gumiry. 2 2 2 2 fb Difference. *» to w to CO o, U en V 3 « u 2 2 S 2 A. Figure according to Mi Hulme. " to to oi • ■(- 9» T* _2__2_2_2 pj Difference.