Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 11 May 1921, Page 2

'The figures disclosed in respect to the Postal and Telegraph revenue for the past year, reveal a condition of affairs not surprising. The late abnormal increase in the tariff, doubling the postal rates and also the telegraphic rates on the pre-war scale, has not had *he effect of increasing the business. It was not expected it would have. That has been the experience elsewhere, and the result is the same here. When we recall the conversation by Sir Joseph Ward, our great Postmaster-General,

we remember that by reducing (not increasing) the rate he caused an enormous increase in both the volume of business, and revenue of the Department-,- we need not wonder that with the increased charges the business should tapeu. off. The Department shows an excess of receipts above expenditure of only £35,277. This is over sixty thousand pounds less than the estimate, so that the departmental heads were very much astray in their calculations. When we recall that the increased rates do not cover a full financial year, it will not be surprising if the Department shows a deficit instead of a small surplus. The position now is that the public are getting a leas useful service

it a much greater cost, and from, the figures disclosed an actual deficit can be looked for. The Department will be expected if it is to be the policy to keep up the tariff to discourage business, to reduce expenditure substautialy to avoid a loss. There is an enormou.se reduction of business —what is being done to reduce staff? A falling off of six hundred thousand pounds in telegrams is proof indeed of the failure ■ of the Department to judge the commercial side of the service aright and with so much less work to do, what of the staff necessary to perform it.-' Perhaps the Department will revise its policy by reverting to a cheaper tariff again. Theiie was a very critical discussion at the County Council meeting yesterday regarding the Charitable aid levy. The County Council is the principal local body contributor, and the figures quoted disclosed how high that particular local authority is levied upon. Last year it will be recalled a record levy was struck. It was expected that the amount then demanded would put the Hospital Board out of debt and able to carry on again on normal lines. In order to help the Hospital Board, the County Council rose its rate for the year by fifty per cent, levying nine farthings instead of six to meet the I increase. The Board wiped out its deficit and at the end of the year \yns I in credit, but the position is now accentuated by a desire on the part of the Board to go on with works, and to pay for these a capital levy is proposed, which with the ordinary sum for maintenance, carries the demand on the

contributing bodies to a very high amount still. Instead of being able to return to the six farthing rate as usual to carry on, the County Council will require to levy eight farthings if the Board requiremnts as demanded are to be complied with. The County Council has resolved not to accept the levy, and asks the Board now to make a substantial reduction cither by deferring the capital expenditure or performing the work out of moneys accrued in the building fund. The Board is to meet on the 10th., inst, and if the proposal made is not acceptable, then the Council asks for a conference on the matter on the 25th. inst. It would appear from what was said yesterday that owing to the financial stringency coupled with the loss of Government grants, the County Council has a difficult year ahead, and the councillors were not disposed too agree to the high levy proposed, considering it most inopportune and a heavy burden on the ratepayers affected. It is to be hoped that the negotiations to take place will lead tq a way out from the impasse.