CAMBRIDGE TOWN BOARD EXTRAVAGANCE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2190, 22 July 1886, Page 3

CAMBRIDGE TOWN BOARD EXTRAVAGANCE.

TO THK EDITOR. Sir,— l see by your issue of the 20th iu^t. a letter from "A Ratepayer" on the ab<.\t> subject, in which he proceeds to polish oiF Mr Asher and myself in regard to a vote of the board at last meeting. In the tit.st place I would lemind "A Ratepayer" that. Asher and Hughes are not the board, although we have one member who considers himself as such. As nearly all clei !<•> to the licensing benches throughout tlu> colony are paid a small sum for their services, 1 cannot .see the reason for "A Ratepayer's" indignation. The Cambiidgo Town Board derive some £200 per year from license fees; does "A Ratepayer" consider it right or just to expect a dork to do all the work in connection with this income for love. All the members of the board voted for the motion with the exception of Mi Hcwilt, and after considerable desultory talk were quite agieeable to pay ft small sum as requested, not only because it was just to do so, but because the application was recommended by tho licensing bench, who hive every means of knowing what work is required in connection with the office. I can only leave the ratepayers to judge why Mr Hewitt voted against it. Can "A Ratepayer" call to mind (as he is \ery good at remembering past events) which member of the boa id was chiefly instrumental in causing some £350 0f the ratepayers' money to bn squandered through " pure love and affection " not so long back. Let "A Ratepayer" answer this, and publish his name, and I am prepared to have it out with him. In conclusion, I advise "A Ratepa}'er '! to get a little better coached, and get all facts before rushing into print, as a motion of »ny member of the board which is carried by a quorum cannot be illegal. Let the public have your name to your ne\t, Mr ''Ratepayer," so that they may see who protests, and who is struck.— l am, yours obediently, Alfred G. Hughes. Cambridge,?2oth July, 1886.

TO THK EDITOR. Sib,- Seeing a letter signed "Ratepayer" in your issue of the 20th, re the five pounds voted for Licencing Commissioners' Oleik, I would like to ask " Ratepayer" if it w.is legal to pay the clerk to the town board, about two guineas for acting one day as returning officer to the licensing commissioner?, seeing that he is paid a regular salary by the board for his services. If so, why should not their clerk, who is employed the whole year, receive his paltry live pounds ? "Ratepayer" bhould be reminded that this money ought to be deducted from the license fees before fhe board grit hold of it. The board now receive something like two hundred pounds a year, and it will be a very easy thing for the licensing commissioners, without asking "Ratepayer's" or anybody's advice, to retaliate on the board by refusing to grant one or more of the licenses, and thus reduce the fees forty pound* or more, instead of afpaltry fiver. It has been remarked that there are more pubs hsre than are required, let them rub one out.— l am, yours obediently, Ned Gapp.