CR. RICHARDS AGAIN.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 1, 31 December 1913, Page 5

CR. RICHARDS AGAIN.

[To The Editor Stratford Post.]

Sir, —Mr Masters states as a fact that the letters written by Mr Kirk'wood and myself were “written under the same eye.” This 1 positively doiiv, and 1 further state as a positive truth that Mr Kirkwood and 1 have not known what the other had written previous to publication. Personal reflections such as this, made by Mr -Masters, do not of course fleet the issue at stake, but the lack or truth in it condemns him in no small degree. Mr Masters also says that “every fair and reasonable-minded ratepayer will admit that there is nothing'whatever (in the coveted license) deterimental to their interests.” The license was fully

considered by the Borough Council, who (unanimously I think) passed a resolution condemning it as inimical to the best interests -of the Borough. The Borough solicitor also strongly condemned it. Surely even Mr Masters will admit that the burgesses’ representatives are doing what appears to them best for the Borough, and that no direct personal benefit can accrue to any of them in opposing the license, and although (Mr Masters directs his attack chiefly at Mr Kirkwood and myself, the burgesses and he must clearly understand that we are merely acting as representatives, and that if we were not fairly accurately voicing the opinions of the Council other Councillors would soon take part in the newspaper discussion in opposition to us. Mr Masters is nettled hy my reference to fat dividends. I did not say that the Electrical Supply Co. had paid fat dividends, although considering the price asked as goodwill when there was a chance of selling out to the burgesses, one might reasonably assume that they had. I have stated previously, and burgesses would do well to ponder it, that if the proposed license were granted the Company would be enabled to operate in the Borough for a further period of nearly forty years on terms rather more favorable to them than,at present. The statement that the Borough could compete with them is misleading, because with Supply Company’s lines one side of the road and telephone lines on the other, where would the Borough place its linos. MiMasters evidently hopes to create some favour hy repeated reference to the clause which provides that no goodwill is attachable”/to the license. He previously stated that.it provided “that the horotigli shall not pay any goodwill /for thy business,' ’ -.but since T corrected, him be lias, abandoned this latter. If £-1000 were asked for the goodwill of a business having about 7 years to run what price would they ask if the business had 40' years of life? The right of purchase hy arbitration is probably useless; because if the license extended over both bp.iv) ongh and county,, and each local body, had hqual rights of purchase, the difficulties^Mn The Hvrty of purchase by either or both are manifest and many. Enrthel', the license does not provide for the Borough or County to purchase a portion of the works within its own area only, and consequently the impossible necessity to operate in the County would be thus imposed on the Borough if it exercised its "right of purchase. And this same Mr .’Masters who persistently dangles this “right of purchase” before the burgesses as a desirable provision states in bis letter published on 23rd instant that “he has very grave doubts if the Borough could legally operate in the County.” It is quite evident that the proposed license or the like of it would give the Company a very much bigger bold on the Borough and would prove to be a strangle-hold on any aspirations to a municipal-owned lighting system. With reference to all the sorry stuff which the Chairman of the Electrical Supply Co. has written to ostensibly aid the County ratepayer—what can we now do but to pass it silently by; fervently hoping that he will in the future spare a larger measure of sincerity in this connection.—l am, etc., J. B. RICHARDS. Stratford, 30th December, 1013.