BOROUGH AFFAIRS.

Wanganui Chronicle, Issue 20292, 20 February 1915, Page 3

BOROUGH AFFAIRS.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —It seems a pity that Mr. Hatrick cannot put his ideas on paper without having to resort to terms of tho merest general abuse. As he has chosen t> attack Mr. Williams and myself, I invite him to quit generalities and make specific charges. In the Scotch law phrase, let him condescend to particulars, give instances of any "unpardonable incompetence," etc., on th© ! part of his successors, and show where we have misapplied or wasted the Borough funds. 1 will give an example of what I mean. During Mr. Hatrick's term of office, he brought forward a scheme for bringing water from .Virginia in earthenware pipes. The scheme was opposed, and what actually happened was prophesied, but Mr. Hatrick had his own way. The pipes were laid and the water turned into them. In a moment the whole line was shattered as if struck with a 42-centimetre shell, and £1700 of the Borough's money vanished into the air. Let Mr. Hatrick match this performance with any of mine. And now a few words as to the. Okehu loan. On Mr. Hatrick's own showing, he left a yearly deficit of £2000 a year on this loan—interest, £3135, revenue, £1100. Mr. Hatrick does not add the upkeep of the line, etc., which is little less than another , £1000. You see at once the burden I had to provide for t out of rates, which my predecessors were not called on to do. It is true that the revenue has since increased, largely owing to my action in extending the system to Gonville. That, however, does not affect the point at issue. In addition, Mr. Hatrick ignores the fact that a large amount of the revenue of £1100 to which he refers would have been carried even if the Okehti works had never been started. Previous to the installation we had a revenue of over £800 from the sale of water from the old supply. Mr. Hatrick also overlooks the fact that he enjoyed from sanitary fees a revenue of some £900, which was abolished by his successors and added to the rate. In addition to this., Mr. Hatrick diverted some £7000 from the loan, leaving tho water works unfinished. "We have since had to borrow largely to complete the work, this further increasing the burden on the rates. Indeed, I turn to Mr. Hatrick's own admissions for proof of my contentions. He states that £1000 of the Okehu loan was diverted to buy a fire engine. "What justification there was for such a step I cannot imagine. But I know that the loan only has a sinking fund of \ per cent., at which rate it "will bo 150 years before it. is. paid off. "What will there then be to show for the. fire engine? This is a fair sample of what 1 mean when I say that Mr. Hatrick was leaving posterity to pay. The same remarks exactly apply to the - Opera House. It istnie lhat this institution is showing a profit. That is beside the question. Here was a wooden building, with a.life of say thirty years, and already practically out of date, erected with borrowed money. Not a single penny was provided for sinking fund till I renewed the loan and arranged for a sinking fund of two per cent. Mr. Hatrick evidently thinks that even this should be collared to relieve tho rates, leaving posterity to pay for the loan. That is not my idea of sound finance. To meet an attack like Mr. Hatrick's it is. I think, fair to compare my Mayoralty with that of others. Let us apply this test. Mr. Bigneil succeeded Mr. Hatrick. He was a careful and efficient Mayor, devoting an immense amount of time and trouble to the work, and doubtless he had the full benefit of Mr. Hatrick's assistance and advice. *Yet during his last year in office the deficit in the general account was £2400 greater than the average deficit ever since. In that year alone, in ; spite of the fact that part of the inter- ! est was paid out of loans, over £3000 I had to be transferred to the water ac- ' count. I do not mention this to Mr. Bignell's detriment. Like me, he had to provide for charges which his predecessor had bequeathed to him. . Mr. Hatrick had left the baby on Mr. Big- , nells doorstep before it was transferred to me. One word in conclusion. Mr. Hatrick refers to the honorarium I received as Mayor during my seven (not six) years of office, and aays that it would have paid the ratepayers handsomely to give me £600 a year to stay away. It seems almost a pity that such language should be imported .into a newspaper controversy. Probably if £600 a year would have kept me out of the Mayoral chair. Mr. Hatrick would have" subscribed liberally towards ihat end. —I am, etc., C. E. MACKAY.