A REPLY FROM THE MAYOR.

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

A REPLY FROM THE MAYOR.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE I'BESS.

Sir, —The report of the sub-committee of the Sydenham Uurough Council, endorsing Mr flulme's figures, calls for a few remarks. The proposed amalgamation of the borough with the city is not unconditional, as stated. The City Council was asked by the conference of delegates from the other bedie* to formulate proposals, and it is on the line of these proposals that union would take plate. The proposals included the retention of outside ooroughs in the form of wards. This couise was necessary, as the existing loans would necessitate «i special rate in each borough to pay interest thereon. For the rest, :he Municipal Corporations Act. was made the backbone of the whole structure, and provides for representation and the equitable adjustment of accounts under the supervision of the AuditorGvnerai.

Wliile Messrs Gundry and Hulme are disputing ovtj the accounts, there is danger ihat the real issue may be obscured. Each body possesses assets and liabilities. Tlrlatter, however, remain a responsibility on the districts which raised them. The assets are to ue pooled, and Mr Hulme divides t'iiem into two tables—B, non-productive, such, as parks, squares, gardens, etc. ; 88, productive, such a« reserves, leases, etc. Mr GuJidry mak«? s no such distinction, because ha has already included the income from the productive reserves in his C table, and by Mr Huhne's manoeuvre the special value of the productive reserves would be credited iwico over. The position he takes up ie exactly the same as if a man going into partnerilup claimed to be allowed £1000 in the capital of the new firm for his grazing paddock,,end, having been allowed this., wanted also to w> allowed the £50 a year for which, th*- paddock was 1-et! For all practical purposes the assets and liabilities may be put on one side, the crucial test, as ilr Hulnie. very propeiiv — ■* —•-<—»•- i.i»t- Tir:_ »«i,i_..£,.,

affected by amalgamation in each centre. Messns Gundry and Hulrre differ slightly, and probably "the tiuth lies midway, but both Hiimit that the city will lose a little by having to pay slightly higher rate*. Mi Gundry says all the borough rates will be reduced ; Mr Hulme contends that St. Aibans will, like the city, lose, but the loss will only be 6-64 din the £ —a mere trifle. The* variation from present rates is in fact trifling, except in the case ot Linwood, which will be a considerable gainer. <•■ I cannot follow that part of the argument in which figures are given of certain large centre* of population at Home. Glasgow, with its enormous population, may be big enough without absorbing the 170,000 population of the outside boroughs We are dealing hfre, however, with a city of 17.500,- so closely associated with about a 25.000 population just outside that the municij*' .re common to both.

Thiseu\jf>e+ Mf ri" , :. '"l-I.' making, such demands on ;>u: space i'f~.i 1 have made my remarks as concisa as possible, and have avoided issue with aiiy of the committee's statements, except such as are really material to the issue.—Yours, etc., HEXRY WIGRAM January 20th, 1903.