THE MAYOR v. EX-MAYOR.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8071, 29 March 1906, Page 2

THE MAYOR v. EX-MAYOR.

To THE EDITOR, . Sib,—l find from your report of last Monday night's Council meeting that the Mayor impugns some of the statements that I made to the deputation which presented me with the requisition to stand for the Mayoralty. Kindly allow me space 111 your valuable paper to reply. He says that the finances were never in a better position I ban at present. When 1 went out of the position there was then an overli'aft of £1127, aud an increase of "ales of about .£BOO from an increased valuation for the ensuing year; whereas the liability, which must become an overdraft according to his own statement, is now £4OOO, and the increase in rates for this year about £45 from increased valuations. He also denies my statement as to the saving that can be effected by using the borough plant for crushing metal, yet shows by the figures he quotes that there is a savin» of nearly Is 8d per yard, and if he adds to this what the Borough has had to pay for screenings ho would tind that my estimate of 2s per yard would work out about right. The Mayor also states that every yard used for the past two years had come from the Council's crasher, yet in the face of this statement I find from the Borough records tliat'on the 28tli March, 1904, Mr Kny vett was let a contract: to crush

51)110 yards; and on the 27th February, 1905, Mr Hayes was let a contract for nearly 000 yards. Mr Hayes having sold out lus interest in the plant and contract, his successor continued to supply all the metal required for the borough until last October. The Mayor refers to the amount of 6202 spent on melal during my last year of office, but I lliiuk it compares favorably witli the amount spent for metal and griuel (in the balance-sheet For 11)05, namely £270 ; the difference between this amount and the £ISOO must have come from Joan. I also wish to state that the streets improvement loan was available for expenditure duriuj my last year of office, hence the small amount required for the upkeep of finished streets, and the savings we.'e appropriated to reducing a considerable overdraft which had been

spent on streets previous to the loan being raised. With reference to the New Plymouth Patriotic Fund and the Troopers' Memorial Fund, I again state that the Mayor has no! subscribed to either of those funds, and as I am not connected with any other funds for those purposes 1 cau have no further personal knowledge. With reference to the luncheon to Sir Joseph Ward on the opening of the railway status, the whole matter was dealt w'th by resolutions of the Council, and it was tke duty of the Mayor for the time being to give effect ta them, hence the deficiency was met by the Council. On the laying of the foundation stone of tlie new post office it was arranged differently, as the Council|refused to entertain Sir Joseph, and the Mayor and public took the matter in baud and provided tho entertainment. I would here remind tho Mayor that the honorarium of £SO previously voted was not considered ' sufficient, hence his was raised to ' £loo, which lias first to be spent in connection with the Borough before a Mayor can claim to be out of pocket over Borough duties or functions. Finally I would ask why all of this re-organisation of the staff, reducing salaries and dismissing officers, if the Borough is in the strong linaucial positjou that the Mayor asserts I—l1 —1 ah}, etc., ' E."Dockbk.L.