BOROUGH COUNCIL MATTERS.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 2524, 13 September 1888, Page 2

BOROUGH COUNCIL MATTERS.

TO TUB EDITOIt. The lie that is only half :i lie is Thu hardest ol all tn refute. LoNOI'KI.LOW. rim,—l need scarcely, 1 think, liuvc replied to Mr Scott's letter, of. yesterday, but that lie has found one weak spot in my armour, when lie twils me with calling my income and expenditure for 1888-8!) "a balancesheet.'. Strictly speaking, it is ii"t a balauc»-»heet, ljut simply a statement of facts. The figures lii-wevur, which 1 gave are literally current, as the Town Clerk could testily, ■ and whether it is called a, " balance-sheet," or a statement of what the Borough has to come and go upon during a certain period, makes no practical difference whatever. The facts and figures are correct, and show exactly our financial position. Mr Scott's letter, of yesterday, when analysed, presents no new matters to reply to. The major portion is an attempted vindication of the late Councillor Scott, which is not the real question at issue, and one in which the burgesses are not interested. What they do care for is that a truthful explanation of the financial position of the Borough should be placed before them, and not one, that either from wilfulness or ignorance, is garbled and misleading. The second portion of your correspondent's letter is abuse of "Anti-Gammon." That, too, is a matter of no public interest, and "A. Cr." can afford to let it pass. As regards the remaining portion of Mr Scott's letter, "Oh, what a small half-pennyworth or bread to such a quantity of sack !" facts and figures as he would call them, that gentleman is peculiarly unhappy. Why, if his first letter was not meant to servo an electioneering purpose (like last night's motion in the Couucil for djing away with ihe street lamps), was it left over to the ove of an annual Borough Council election? IJo men gather figs from thorns or grapes from thistles? Would they look for financial reform from two gentlemen, of whom Mr Scott was one, who voted for the payment of Mr James O'Dea's claim against the Borough for £105, to which, as the law courts showed, he had not the shadow of a title, a claim for services for which the Council held receipt in full for all demands? Believe me, sir, these charges of electioneering purposes to be served, so flippantly denied, are not mere " chip traps or the proverbial red herring." The denial that he did not obstruct the planting on Jubilee day of the lake reserve, is true and untrue. He voted againsc no motion, for the simple reason that he obstructed the introduction of a motion for holding the proposed bee, by ridiculing it in his place on the board, when those who worked with him took their cue and threw cold water on the proposal. " How many people" asked Mr Scott with a sneer on that occasion " would take part in such a movement." There are more ways of killing a dog than by choking him with butter. As to his alleged ironical proposal for a third bath at No. 1, both he and his alter ego, Cr. Jones, fought hard for it, and the rest of the Council must have been as " mild and dull of comprehension " as myself, or the irony must have been too carefully wrapped up, for they all took the same view of the contest, namely, that they could have secured these two votes for the baths had the bath at No. 1 been agreed to. As to Mr Scott's more recent, and also to his original figures, I simply refer your readers to the town clerk's office, where any burgess may inspect the books and Council records. Anyone intelligently searching there will find my figures correct, literally correct; those of Mr Scutt's unmistakably wrong. I have thought it right on public grounds and to prevent the. deseeption of those burgesses who have to take such information at second hand, to show tho misleading nature of statements issued to influence the present election, and from no wish to obtain personal credit for my endeavours and, therefore, in all modesty again sign myself Anti-Gammon. Hamilton, September 12th. P.S. One word as to Mr Scott's figures. Endowment rents really are £S(i, not £02 as he states, the balance £24 having been collected but did not meet tho balance-sheet period. He says the Government subsidy is £08, not £102, but even at last night's Council meeting the receipt of £25 10s lid, the balance of the subsidy, was announced by the clerk, making, when added to the £70 12s 7d already received, the sum of £102 3s lid, as stated by me. As to the taking over the liability of the Domain Board, that was done by the Council, not on behalf of the burgesses, but aj trustees on behalf of the Government. £07 was the sum paid under the head of lighting in 1887, but Mr Scott has not the knowledge of facts or the ingenuousness to point out that this included five new lamps. Truly his , figures are on a par with his facts, the one not a bit more reliable than the other. A. G.