CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1367, 11 October 1883, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

[We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by our correspondents]. :o: A CORRECTION. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —J am not, to take part in the festivities of the ] 2th inst, in the school at Patutahi; and for reasons known to the promoters by private letter from me.—l am, &c., P. Riordan, R.C. Clergyman.

MUNICIPAL NUTS TO CRACK.-No. 3. TO TUB EDITOR. Sir,—l have been looking forward to the statement of the half-yearly balance of the Borough Council. I see in a recent issue of your contemporary, the Herald, a supposed synoposis of the revenue and expenditure for the last six months, but the whole affair is bo much jumbled up, so contradictory, and so misleading, that to an ignoramus like myself, I feel as mnoh in the dark as ever, still eufficient information may be gleaned, that the whole revenue of the Borough and Harbor Board from all sources amounts to close on £3OOC year, and that the balance left for the prosecution of public works in the Borough is some £669 and the Harbour Board about £6OO, making a total of about £l3OO, left for street improvements and harbor accommodation. Now sir, I would like to institute a comparison, between the working expanses of the two co-operate bodies and any of our commercial firms, joint stock companies, or other public offices. To keep the books, and receive this £3OOO we pay a Town Clerk £250. and cadet £65, making a total of £315 ; to supperintend the disbursement of £l3OO, we pay an engineer £250, clerk of works, say £5O; we also pay an inspector £lOO, wharfinger, £l3O, which amounts to over 25 per cent, for receiving and expending alone, and which may be fairly put down under the the heading of office salaries. Now, take any of our leading firms, expenditure for running the office, and I dare |to predict that it will fall short of this per centage ; supposing their transactions during the course of the year to amount to £30,030, their office expenses would be £7,500, and I think that however great their profits are, such an expenditure would simply be ruinous, and in a very short time their positions would fie reversed, and the servants become the masters. Take the Customs office here, with a revenue of over £12,000, I’ll be bound to say, the cost of collecting, &c, does not exceed from 4 to 5 per cent, and the work must be of a far more extricate nature than that of the Borough. Take our building societies, with a revenue of £3OOO, their office expenses do not average 3 per cent. It is only fair to state that the Engineer does the valuation of the Borough, but supposing we had no engineer, I think the valuating could be done for the sum of about £5O. Our township is not so very extensive, with very few exceptions the buildings are not crowded together, and it would not take a competent person very long .to compile and value. I think one month would be ample and sure am I that plenty of responsible persons wonld willingly undertake the work for the sum mentioned. Upon the whole I think tho scale published in my first letter is quite fair and practicable, and if the services of an engineer are at any time wanted let the Council and Harbour Board go into the market and let the work be done at the usual professional charges oi per centage, and only pay for work done, ond approved of; by this means I think large savings would be effected and the work carried out economically and effectively, and upon the same basis as other commercial firms. “ Gentlemen Councillors ” and “ fellow ratepayers,” it costs 3d out of each hard earned la to pay for rates, to receive it and pay it away—think of it—think of it.—l am, &0., Hard Nut.