MR JOBLIN'S REPLY TO MR WRIGHTSON.

Taihape Daily Times, 29 April 1919, Page 5

MR JOBLIN'S REPLY TO MR WRIGHTSON.

o To the Editor. Sir, —Permit me to reply to Mr. Wrightson's criticism at last night's meeting. I repeat and reaffirm all that was said about the £3600 loan for the gas engine. For three years this plant has cost the ratepayers £2lO per year, and has not earned a .shilling, because a generator was not procured at the time tliQ engine was purchased. Had this been done, the plant would have been earning at least £2OO a year, and the light would have been extended to the Terrace and Hill. To say that the engine was not bought to use, but to look at is so ludicrous and farcical that tho person making it should be sent away to have his head read. The generator which must be bought now, will cost over £IOOO. At the time the loan was floated it could have been purchased for £OOO.

Referring to what was said about Council and Committee meetings: Out of 30 Council meetings I attended 2(3. Councillors Turnbull, Cunningham, and I v)ittended one meeting which lapsed for want of a quorum. Cr. Wrightson was present, but left the room to go to the pictures. I attended all the meetings called of the* Town Hall and Reserves Committees. With reference to finance: When the committees were being formed at the beginning of the term, only three were placed on it, including the Mayor, whilst on all others there were four, including the Mayor. the Finance Committee being His Worship the Mayor, Crs. Wrightson, and Joblin. This gave the first-named gentlemen full control, and all my suggestions were turned down as fast as they were put up.

I However, I was always present when anything of especial importance was i to be brought up, such as estimates i for the year etc. At three out of four of these "very important meetings" all that has to be done is to pass the accounts for payment taking about 15 i minutes and immediately adjourn to i Hie Club for two hours. ! Let me tell you something about how sanitary affairs are d'ealt with. We i compelled a woman in poor circumstances, Mrs A. F. Vickers, to connect up tit a cost of some £SO, threatening her with all sorts of pains and penalties in event of non-compliance. Somo time later the Health Officer ! put in a list of premises that required | attention —some of these owned by Mr ■ Wrightson —and asked that these peoj pic be compelled to do the necessary j work. We were told that our sanitary by-laws were not strong e::ough to see

us through. When I enquired how it was that we could compel Mis Vickers to do the work, the reply was, "Oh, we bluffed her!" Another instance: The Health Officer, Mr Swindells, and the Building Inspector. Mr Surges, reported to the Council that a leading plumber in town, one Mr Geo. Wrightson, had made a serious breach of the by-laws, in covering up a certain drain before tho work had been inspected. It was the connection from Mr Fookc's premises. The Council, by resolution, ordered the Health Officer to prosecute. Cr. Wrightson, who was sitting at the table, openly defied the Council, and told us to "Come on wi.ili our prosecutions." Nothing was done. The matter was allowed to drop.

The Health Officer told mc that no instructions to prosecute ever reached '•iin. Mr Bnrges Iras since been disobarged. Tlie statement that I opposed the granting of £IOO for peace celebrations

is absolutely untrue, like a lot of other statements made, and infer that I have tried in any way to belittle the great achievements of our soldiers, and was not in full sympathy with them, is low-down and contemptible. Let me here tell the men about a little incident that occurred at the Council table a few months back. Cr. Wrightson complained that the soldiers had left the Ti.wn Hall and ante-rooms in a disgraceful state after one of their dances, mentioning that, beer and whisky bottles were lying all over the place, and, after making further uncomplimentary remarks, turned to the reporters' table and said, "I don't want this reported.'' No man has any right to make complaints about anybody or anything that he : s afraid to see in print.

Now, with regard to the building scheme, the statement made that a live-roomed house could not be built for a less sum than would necessitate £1 Os 3.U1 per week to be charged for rent is outrageous. The building money could be borrowed at 44 per cent, and all we would require would be the rent to be fixed on a 6 per cent basis." Supposing a good five-roomed house did cost £7OO (which it would not), that is £42 a year—l.6s per week, using our reserves for building sites. If our town is to progress something must be done. We cannot expect prices to go back to the pre-war level. Labour, which is a strong factor, will not come down, at

i any rate, not. before the cost of living J does. Roofing iron is down, and will rbe further reduced within six months.