THE MUNICIPALITY QUESTION.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 112, 17 February 1872, Page 3

THE MUNICIPALITY QUESTION.

To the Editor of THE THAMES GUARDIAN Sm, —In my letter published in your columns ef the 14th inst. I find a mistake occurred in, making a quotation fiom. Mr Pcrston by using the words “Municipal Police Force Act ” instead of “Municipal Police Act.” This would hardly be worthy of notice if the irrepressible ' Secretary of the Kauwaeranga Highway Board bad not seized on this point as a means of convicting me of of “ making somo absurd mistakes.” Now this error is so evidently a clcrcial one, and it lias so little bearing on the general question that no further remark upon the subject is needed. But when a gentleman of Mr Pcrston s capacity and intellgcnce attempts to teach others, through the medium of the press, lie should be careful of his facts. In his previous letter bo tried to make the public believe that one of the advantages of a Municipality would be the revenues from the water-works, which he informs us “ are said to be yielding an income of not less than £IOOO per annum, and the income goes on daily increasing. This statement I demurred to as absolutely untrue. Mr Pcrston now tries to justify it by quibbling upon my words “ gross” income and “ nett ” income, and in substantially re-asserting his incorrect statement says:—“ 1 can point to three individuals who pay £CO per annum each nr £IBO towards the Member’s £2OO. Now Mr Pcrston’s statements arc either facts or they are not. What are the facts? There arc four batteries paying, or which have agreed to pay, at the rate of £SO a year each, or £2OO a year hr all. Other payments for the first half year do not amount to £loo in the aggregate, or say £3OO a year. This ,rivcs a gross income ot not exceeding £ooo a year instead of £IOOO. The salary of tfic turncock is £125 which deducted therefrom leaves an apparent balance of £375. But from this amount must be deducted all contingent expenses, with whatever it may be proper to allow for cost of supervision by the engineering staff of the Provincial Government. This item I put down at the very least as £175, and it is the only “hypothetical charge ” I have used. Now I leave others to judge whether my estimate of £2OO as the income of the water works is fair or not, and whether the words “ plausible state incut” arc most applicable to Mr Perstcu or myself. As regards the drainage of Shortland and Graliamstown Mr Pcrston states that he has “formed no opinion” upon that question. How was it that in his previous letter he put it forward as one of toe advantages to be got by the proposed Municipality. . - But really, sir, I have no intention ot being drawn into a newspaper controversy with Mr Pcrston, whom I am quite willing to allow to have tic last word as lie evidently desires, for having “ iinpunged Ids statements,” and shown him to be quibbling and inaccurate in the above mentioned matters, I think 1 am justified in adding ex who disec omnes I am, &c., A Mkmhek of the Pauawai Board.