MR MASTERS IN REPLY TO THE MAYOR.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 99, 29 December 1913, Page 5

MR MASTERS IN REPLY TO THE MAYOR.

I [To The Editor Stratford Post. J Sir,—l have no intention in this letter to take up much of your .valuable space, chiefly 'for the reason that [there is in Mr Kirkwood's "Christimas Card" so little to reply to, and less as regards Cr. Richards' effusion. Anyone perusing these e.niinot fail to recognise the fact that .these two epistlos, although perhaps not w-ritten by the same hand, have, nevertheless, been written under the same eye, the same mind being at the. back'of both, directing this extraordinary sidetracking. Mr Kirkwood accuses me of not making any attempt to controvert any of his .statements. I' am .'quite prepared to leave your readers to judge as to whether I did not prove, right up to the hilt, that both he and Cr. Richards have done all that is possible to prevent the County sectlers from the benefit: of having a supply of electricity to light their homes, provide power for their milking machines and energy for running their creameries and factories. Mr Kirkwood seems to feel sore that I am ungenerous in not accepting his assurance", that, he has in no way attempted to block the Company from extending operations in the County. ~ I have all lalong held, .and still maintain, in (spite of;any red herring Mr Kirkwood I may draw across the .-scent, that the position is exactly as I have stated. The double, somersault attempted by Mr Kirkwood on the "cant" and "judge" question is a complete failure, apparent even to Mr Korkwood himself. Surely the, less Mr Kirkwood says.on the, question of ill-feeling and running counter to the Company the better .for himseH'.'for his atcitude all along has proved just the. opposite to that -which he would .lead the ratepayers to believe. May I submit an Did American axiom to, .the.-attention of my friend, which is worthy of hi« serious consideration: "You may foo. some of the people all the time, all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all ot the time." Submit "ratepayers", for "people" and you have the position in a nutshell,. One would he led to believe by the strenuous oppo sition of His Worship to the license, that the Company's possession oft thi> would.be against he interests of the. Borough. For the benefit of those who may not be acquainted with the conditions contained in the proposed license, I propose to make the j>ositioi perfectly clear. The license in the Borough does not come into operatior until the.present concession has rtu out, and therefore no agreement pre viously entered into by the Company and the Council is'being violated ii ' •my way,- At the end of the preseni concession or any time after, thi Councils are empowered to buy th< undertaking at valuation, not forget ing that the Councils have been pro cected by the Government inasmuc!. as they cannot be called upon to pay for any goodwill in the license. Tlv: prices at which current shall bo sold to consumers have been fixed by tin Government, and are reasonable ones, and compare favorably with any other municipally or privately owned light ing systems in the "Dominion. The license does not give the sob right to the Company to supply lighi .ind power to the Borough or tin County; either body or both conjointly, may, if they so wish, instal- any system they so choose, and be a competitor with the Company (that is il they finally decide not to purchast the Company's interests). So that if electricity can be sold for lighting purposes, municipally generated at half the present cost, which Mr Richards seems to imagine is so feasible. then there is nothing in the widi ' ivorld to prevent the Councils iron: ioperating. And although there ar< many excellently-managed municipal and privately-owned undertakings in Australasia, with the exception of tin city of Melbourne, there is not anothci concern which is selling electricity for lighting purposes at a flat rate oi under ojd per unit, and then only one, a hydro station, with a capital of £oO,OOO. There are a groat many minor clauses protecting the burgesses in every possible manner, and I feel sure that every fair and reasonableminded ratepayer will admit that there is nothing whatever detriinenal to their interests, and that the, Government .'has seen to it that their rights have been well conserved. Cr. Richards' statement concerning fat dividends is neither funny, witty (nor as the, shareholders know, unfortunately) fact. His other chief statement regarding the possibility of so drastically cutting down the price per unit, is both funny and ultra-Utopian. This has already been dealt with. Mr Kirkwood and I are at one, when ho says the matter is entirely a business proposition and should be treated as

such. I he business interests of the Borough nntl Comity are so linked up together that tlio prosperity of the Borough is solely dependent on that of. the County. As Stratford can never become a manufacturing centre, the whole district being essentially a forming one, the more wo can improve the. lot of the man on the land by .giving him comforts ami suitable power to' work his farm, the hotter it must obviously he for Stratford. And I maintain that by giving the- fanners of the County of Stratford a supply of electrical energy it will bo the means of increasing their earnings on their farms, and reducing the cost of running their factories and creameries and adding to the. prosperity generally, and T say emphntitally that it is a sound business proposition. We are all agreed that it is from this source that the prosperity of the town of Stratford must develop. I regret, Mr Editor, encroaching on your valuable space Id the svlout I have dono. —I airi, etc., ROBERT MASTERS.