MR. MASTERS’ REPLY.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 48, 21 February 1912, Page 5

MR. MASTERS’ REPLY.

(To the Editor “Stratford Post.”) Sir,—At the Toavh Hall last night" Cr. Paget distinctly stated that I had not allowed for- any depreciation in my statement of the position placed before the ratepayers. A perusal of my .statement- Avill show that in alloAVing estimates ! haA r e allowed the sum of £IOO per annum for depreciation. Cr. Paget also stated that he had referred for export opinion the original report to an accountant, and that this expert had said it Avas absurd to say that no depreciation should bo alloAved for, because the authorities only required a statement from the borough of receipts and expenditure. There has never been any suggestion that depreciation should not bo provided for. The folloAving paragraph appears in the original report: “As the requirements of the authorities only call for a statement of 'receipts and expenditure from the,.borough, no provision has been made for depreciation. However, to make provision for the replacement of plant, premises, etc., your committee Avould advise, for the purpose of a strict profit and loss statement, ?a .deduction, from the .above -figures- !qf £4OO, in'addition to £l5B already ’ provided, for m the bal-ance-sheet,” making a tota*l of £558. Tf the expert to Avhoni the report Avas referred did not Iciioav that leplapement” and “depreciation,” as appl ed to balance-sheets, mean one and the same thing, his opinion cannot be Avorth much. ' , • As "an advocate for taking over'the concern, tho ratepayers could not have had a better one than Cr. Paget, so far, at any rate, as his figures are concerned. He shoAved the ratepayers last night that after "providing £045 for repayment of goodAvill and £750 for depreciation, or a total amount per annum of £1295, the Council Avould only lose £124 per annum. Worked out for seven years, this means that at the end of that term, according to Cr. Paget, the Council avo, uld have received back the Avhole of their goodAvill (£4000) and an amount for depreciation of £5250—£9250; less a loss of £124 per annum, £B6B, or a net gain altogether in sca-cu years of £8382, for tho purpose of repaying the goodAvill and depreciation. Surely not i\ bad proposition. Cr, Paget’s forte is not finance, it is a realm he should not enter.

Regarding Cr. Paget’s rerffarks, in a general Avay, Avith reference to myself, they Avere not Avorth replying to, further than to say the statement he made to the ratepayers that Mr. Robert Masters Avas .chairman of directors of tho Electric Light Supply Company —he knows is absolutely incorrect. His statement that I said it Avould cost the borough £6OO per annum to light the town is incorrect, also. 1 distinctly said that Avas the estimate of one opposed to the taking over of tho concern. Mr. R. McK. Morison is the man. Neither did I say if tho borough took the concern that aau> could have one hundred lights at the same cost' as Ave now pay for one, but that Ave could have 140 lights Avhere avo hoav have 70 Avithout extra cost for light.— 1 am, etc., J. MASTERS.