ELECTRIC LIGHT LICENSE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 21, 24 January 1914, Page 5

ELECTRIC LIGHT LICENSE.

ESAU'S EXAMPLE.

j [To Tin' Editor Stratford Post.) Sir,—Cr. Walter did not attempt Ito reply to my contention that there is no justice or equity in his advocating that the County Council urge | the Government to force the objectionable license upon the Borough to the I great advantage of the Electrical Supi ply Company. The reason is obvious. He has twice quoted in a 1 misleading manner my statement: j “The impossible uecesisty to operate in the County would be imposed on 'the through” if the Borough purchased by arbitration after the license were issued. I will grant him the compliment that lie lias misunderstood what 1 intended to convey, namely,

that in view of Mr R. Master’s stating that “lie has very grave doubts if the Borough coidd legally operate in the County,” that gentleman’s contention was either insincere of foolish when he dangled the right of purchase of the whole concern in County and Borough as adequate protection. The right of purchase appears practically and legally inoperative, and is no protection to either County or Borough. Cr. W alter says “that the Borough or Borough and County can take the whole concern over at short notice hy 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 he a penny to pay for goodwill.” What lamentable ignorance of tire whole matter lie displays hy this. Everybody knows that, the Company asked £IOOO as goodwill a short time ago, and they would certainly demand something very substantial at present. Althougn the license provides that no goodwill is attachable to the license itself, it is quite clear that goodwill could be asked for “the business,” and the chairman docs not deny this. Taking the Company’s demand of £4OOO for goodwill with a tenure of seven years as a guide, and in view of the probable growth of the future, they might reasonably ask £25,000 or £30,000 for goodwill if they could secure the 42 years’ extension and other rights under the license. Cr. Walter does not deny my contention that the County Council is trying to give away valuable rights over its roads in perpetuity without making definite arrangements for the proper supply of current and without conserving the ratepayers’ interests. He refers me to the resolution passed by them. 1 have read this carefully and I find that the Council has agreed to give the Company rights over its roads in perpetuity. Is it not astounding that a body elected for a maximum period of three years should presume' to trifle with the rights of the peo pie in tin's way. A few men who art “here to-day and gone to-morrow” without reference to their constituents attempt to alienate rights over public roads which shall he .trot! by countless generations- of the future. All this would he had enough if the County ratepayers had some guarantee of benefits to. he received, but in return for the perpetual rights which tho Council seeks to alienate, the Company gives no enforceable undertaking that it will supply current where and when required. Esau has been condemned right down the ages for selling .his birthright for a mess of pottage, but here we have the county trying to sell theirs without even ensuring receipt of the “pottage.” My duty as a publicist in this matter is chiefly concerned in detecting and avoiding danger "to the Borough, and I will not, therefore, further pursue tho question from the viewpoint of the County’s welfare.— 1 am, etc.,

J. B. RICHARDS Stratford, 24th January.