ELECTRIC LIGHT LICENSE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 18, 21 January 1914, Page 5

ELECTRIC LIGHT LICENSE.

CR. WALTER IN REPLY.

j [To Thf Editor Stkatford Post. J

I Sir, —As I did not enter this contra* Iversy for a wrangle, Mr Kirkwood can continue to call me names and express his opinions about me. He says he does not impute any improper motives to me, but why? why? etc., etc. Mr Kirkwood can impute as many as he likes, but I am proud enough to feel that few ratepayers who know me either in the Borough or the County, will impute any. This electric question was forced on the Council by a strong deputation from Xgaere, asking us to support the Company's application for a license, as nearly all the people in that district wished to get electric current supplied. (Vide Evening Post report November meeting). 1 hear a lot have signed a petition there to that effect, and 1 believe very few indeed to whom the position has been explained have refused to sign that petition in the County. What possible good can it do Mr Kirkwood trying to twist my letter? Prominent business men and Borough Councillors know very well, my letter reads, that they agree, with me that County and Borough should be under one license, as Cr. Morison's statement, which I quoted, makes plain. I never wrote that it was the Company having the license, we were agreed on, and which the Borough opposed.

j My attitude right from the opposition of the Borough has been that the license should be granted to the Company if the Borough will not come to a working agreement with the County: (1) to enable the Company to extend their system in the County; (2) to give us safeguards of how the County consumers will be treated if the Company ceases" at the end of their concession; and (3) what further extensions the Borough will make if they obtain the license. All the ink about the wonderful value of the 42 years license is very much wasted, as both correspondents know that the Borough, or Borough and County can take the whole conjcern over at short notice by valuation (at any time, and that if the Borough 'and County could come to an agreement before the issue of the license there will not be a penny to pay for goodwill, but of course, Cr. Richards gives his view of the Borough side by his statement: "the impossible necessity to operate in the County would be imposed on the Borough.'' Both, the correspondents think the abattoir question should not have mentioned. "What is one man's meat is another man's poison" is aptly illustrated. They are justified in forcing something on County ratepayers, but don't you dare force anything on the Borough. They tell us, in effect, we nave the current and use it; don't trouble; sometime, if you live long enough, you may get it, and perhaps we will make a good profit off you to tighten our rates. In answer to Cr. Richards' question, I refer to our resolution published in this paper twice. In conclusion, I do not think Mr Kirkwood's argument about binding a future Council sound, as a recommenjdation to the Minister on the position 'would be binding on a future Council; besides, T am not a lawver, but believe the Act that gave a Council power to make an agreement with the Company would give power to the present Council to amend it if both parties were agreeable.

I do not intend to trouble you again, sir, on this subject, as I have put the County view as clearly as I can before ratepayers, and believe if adopted it would be in the best interests of all concerned.—l am, etc.,

EDWARD WALTER