HOW MUCH WAS BURNED?

Taranaki Daily News, 19 January 1916, Page 4

HOW MUCH WAS BURNED?

(To the Editor.) Sir,--According to your report of tftS discussion in the Council on the recent (second) Ore on borough works I am credited with a that £10(1 worth of soltar was destroyed, whettw the borough engineer hud nssessod (he value at £5. This is not correct. In )ii< report to the Fire Board the •supermtelltJ« ent of the brigade estimate.! tile lot# (it £IOO, and I mentioned this to the Mayor, at whose request I subsequently supplied a copy of the document 1 wa< not at the fire, neither was the boroujjH engineer. On the other bantf, fourtceft members of the fire brigade, rejpeaded to the alarm, and assintc.l to c\ U-ulslt burning soltar contained in four \.> and six casks. The borough was represented by the man who was keeping the fire going under the tanks, anil who can, no doubt, explaiu how the ftitfi* ignited. If the taulrt were fill), rac'i would hold 400 gallons, say 1(100 jallonn, and the en»k» rontnin about 42 gallon*, say 2150 gallons, or a total of IS.iO gal. lons, worth Is per gallon on tile grrundi The casks were destroyed and I lie l.T.i'm were burned di.v. Hut we are laid liy the borough engineer that there weiv» only 100 gallons of soltar burned! Is it customary in this fear'Vlv end wonderfully managed borough to keep a nm« tending (Ires in (lie small hour? of ti* morning empty tanks? 'Che «.npcr' intendent's estimate of £IOO may be a bit wide of the mark, but I nw not prepared, as the Council did. (o swallow t!i« "detailed statement'' (lint (lie total less amounted to only ;C<) 1:1s. It U. satisfactory to note that ii'.e borough engineer's recommendation to alter cl-pf; he terms the "primitive, expwisiv#, fuel highly dangerous method nf heat'ly lut" is being given effeet to.—l am, etc., F. P. CORKIT.i;, Chairman New Plymouth Fi.t Boar,!.