ELECTRIC LIGHT LICENSE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 19, 22 January 1914, Page 5

ELECTRIC LIGHT LICENSE.

THE MAYOR AND CR. WALTER.

[To TnE Editor Stratford Post.]

Sir,—Mr Walter is the second correspondent favoring a joint license over the Borough and County to withdraw from the controversy. He accuses me of wrangling, imputing motives, and twisting his letter. 1 have not wrangled in any sense of the term, and only criticised his actions as a public man, which anyone is entitled to do. As to imputing motives, I distinctly stated in my letter that 1 did no impute any improper motives to Mr Walter in Connection with the question. What I do question is his judgment, which I maintain is wrong on this particular matter, and for my part I feel quite confident that when the history dealing with the license is reviewed, my contentions will be upheld. Although your correspondent accuses me of being ungenerous towards him, he did not at the outset of his letter treat me with any generosity. Notwithstanding being in no way connected with the controversy he brought in the question of prohibition and in a way that could only be meant as an unkindness to myself. He his third accusation, that of twisting his letter, this is without foundation, as I will show. In my last letter I stated the real position, and because my statement does not coincide with Mr .Walter's ideas, he accuses me of twisting his meaning. I have no wish whatever to show your correspondent up in an unfavorable light, but if he will persist that he is right and that I am wrong, it is my affair to show how and why I am right, and this I intend to do. In connection with my alleged twisting of his letter, Mr Walter states: "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 1 quoted, makes plain. I never wrote that it was the Company having the license, we were agreed on, and which the Borough opposed." Quite so.' Now, sir, what your correspondent fails to grasp, is that the Beed of Concession that now exists between the Borough and the Company, must be taken into consideration. If a joint license over the Borough and the County is granted to the Borough, then the Borough must take over the undertaking of the Company that exists to-day. and pay a goodwill for it, (the Company asked £4OOO goodwill -for one third of the term of a concession they got from the Borough for nothing), and if on the other hand a joint license is issued to the Company, the license so issued would render nugatory, the Deed of Concession. In other words, the Borough have a birthright they are not prepared to give away to a private company, and the Company possess rights they are not prepared to forego unless paid a sum the Borought is not prepared to pay. It is most misleading to see statements in print that no goodwill is payable. It is partly true only. No goodwill would be payable in the County or the Borough if the Company got the joint license, but the extended term to forty-two years would more than recompense the Company for the loss of goodwill now asked for the six years to run out the Concession. On the other hand if the joint license was issued to the Borough as Mr Walter says he now wants it, no Act of Parliament would ever na passed by any Government, overriding the rights of the Company and the goodwill attached thereto. From this it will be seen that I did not twist Mr Walter's letter, and that it would be impossible to settle the matter in the off-hand way suggested by him. In taking up the attitude 1 have on this question, 1 have done so as a public duty, and a.s an instance of the folly or giving concessions to private companies, the Auckland tramways might be quoted. The people of Auckland would readily pay a large sum to have the concession cancelled, so as to have the right to run thir own trams. Harking hack to the resolution passed by the County Council concerning the license, I am quite sure that had County Councillors thoroughly understood the position in relaion to the Borough, the resolution would never have been carried, and I challenge Mr Walter to take such steps as would give the County Council an opportunity to vote on the question again. In conclusion, sir, 1 again thank you for allowing so much space to be taken up by this controversy, and as it is a public question of considerable importance, I feel sure that a great deal lof good has been done by its vehtila|tion in the press, 1 only hope that with opinions freely expressed on a public matter no personal animosity will he allowed to rankle on either side. I am, etc., W. P. kIBKWOOB, Mayor.