ELECTRIC LIGHT LICENSE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 4, 5 January 1914, Page 5

ELECTRIC LIGHT LICENSE.

MR MASTERS' FINAL WORD. | I [To The Editor Stratfohd Post.] Sir,—Your readers must be getting j tired of the bewildering reiteration of 'the side-tracking statements made by ;His Worship the Mayor, and no doubt 'don't want a continuous supply of reiplies from me. The Mayor himself jis now obviously at the end of his Most -case, and, on the principle of "no case, abuse the other side," at- • tacks me (I am sorry to find) with 1 bitterness. 1, therefore, propose, as jit has come to that unfortunate stage, so far as 1 am concerned, to close | this correspondence. First, however, [with your kind permission, I purpose correcting the Mayor's latest mis- ! statements. To say that because only three county councillors voiced their very candid—(and to the Mayor and Councillor Richards very painfulopinion the whole Council did not do so, is absurd. Not ono member of the County Council dissented from what Chairman Hathaway and Councillors Walters and Christoffcl so just. ly and emphatically said, and the Council unanimously carried the resolution supporting the granting of the license. If the Mayor's argument were a sound one, then, as hfe and Councillors Richards and Freddie were the only councillors who spoke against the issue of the license (vide your report) at the Borough Council meeting their minority opinion i> not the opinion of the Borough Council, and that Body is in favor of the granting of the license! To quote His Worship—" Verb sap." Now, as to the date of the license: The date matters not, but the date that the license comes into force does. The Mayor accuses me of "ignorance," "deliberate leading astray," and oi "palpable subterfuge." I repeat my assertion—that the license when granted is to come into force as regards the Borough at the date' of the termination of the deed of concession, and as to the County at once. For 'proof,. 1 refer the Mayor to the Hon. Mt Eraser, Minister for Public Works or to Mr W. V. Malone, who was present at my interview wit). the Minister. In reply to the Hon'. Mr Eraser 1 distinctly stated, on behalf of the Company, that the license should be issued subject to tie rights of the Borough upder the deec. of concession and take effect as re gards the Borough at and from the, late* of the termination .of such deed, but as. regards the County forthwith. As 1 have in previous correspondent made perfectly clear, the Company u. no way seeks to break the existing agreement. As to the Government being seized of the true position, tin Government knew everything except that the .Mayor and Councillor Rich ards and possibly the Borough Council, were so strongly (and I ventim to'add selfishly) opposed to the lic-

As to the land-taking question, surely the Mayor as a business man knows better than to really think thai "conditions have no bearing on the question." And now, dealing with the / last of His Worship's extraordinary assertions: To my iniud it is proof j positive, of the sad state in which he finds himself and accounts for his "/no ease, abuse the other side" attitude. Be quoted my statement: "The license is to be issued.under the Act of 1908 and not under the Company's Empowering Act, as Mr Kirkwcod is laboring to instil into the minds of hh readers," and says: "Mr Masters' as sertlon is quite contrary to fact, as I have never mentioned the Empowering Act or referred to it in any way.'' Well, the Mayor is reported, in your issue of the 18th of December, as follows:—"Mr Kirkwood said the lie ense applied for was ostensibly a liceuse to generate electricity by watei power. The license was applied for under the original Act." Unless the Mayor is playing on the word "Em powering" as opposed to "original/ he stands "hoist with his own petard."—! am, etc., ROBERT MASTERS.