The Dominion. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1907. THE TRAMWAYS BILL.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 38, 8 November 1907, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1907. THE TRAMWAYS BILL.

Weee Mr. M'Gowan a greater man, or a man more open to the approaches of humourous ideas, no serious objec- ; tion could lie taken to his extraordinary statement in the House on Wednesday night that the antagonism to the Tramways Bill was due to a want of public knowledge of its provisions. But as Mr. M'Gowan is neither great nor humourous,' he may generally be safely taken to mean just what he says. .When he does not mean what he says, he means nothing at all. In the present instance it is difficult to say whether he was merely using an obsolete weapon of the old-fashioned politician, or whether he. really believes that no amount of unanimity in the hostility to a Government measure disproves his permanent belief that such hostility is, per se, a proof of ignorance.. As a matter, of fact, the Bill has,.been exhaustively discussed and uncompromisingly condemned by all four of the governing bodies of the cities. The very most that anybody has been able | to say in its defence has been that its provisions, so far as they make for the efficient conduct of tramway systems, might with advantage be applied to Auckland, where the tramways are in the hands of a private syndicate. But nobody has asked for, as no circumstance has demanded, State interference of a drastic character with the and managed systems of Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin. The arguments against the Bill, stated over and over again in every newspaper of any importance, and presented in a thoroughly convincing form' by the various municipalities concerned, are so plainly overwhelming I Jihat we are surprised that even Mr.

M'Gowan's obstinacy should have remained unaffected by them. He pro-

mises certain " modifications" of the proposals in the Bill, but with characteristic pcrverseness refused to give any hint of their scope, unless there is a hint in his expressed determination to hold fast to the principle of the Bill. Theprinciplc of the Bill is simply the vesting in a State Department of the complete control of the tramways systems, and it is proposed to do this by empowering State officials to frame regulations aft'ectiug every conceivable detail of management, from the supervision of the financial working of the tramways to the fixing of stopping places. It was urged some time ago on behalf of the Bili that it only " gave authority " to the Department to do all these things, and that there was no intention of exercising that unlimited power. Even had the municipalities not good reason to regard the tendency towards State centralisation as the greatest menace to muncipal life in the future, they could not listen for a moment to such a plea as that the weapon forged by the Bill will not be used in its full destructiveness. The Socialist is not in the habit of neglecting his opportunities. The peculiar injustice of the Bill, as we have on previous occasions pointed out, is its introduction "of the principle of representation without, taxation —of confiscation, in short—by its curtailment of the governing functions of the municipalities. An equally undesirable feature of tlie Bill is the injury which it promises to the civic spirit. A healthy municipal life, which will attract good citizens to 'the councils of local government, is a strong bulwark against the centralisation and Socialism which arethreatening this country. The second •reading of the Bill was carried by 24 votes to 22, and the narrowness of this margiu inspires us with hope that the " modifications" hinted at by Mr. M'Gowan will require to be particularly, liberal before the House agrees to the first steps towards the nationalisation of the tramways systems. There is, nevertheless, urgent need for vigilance on the part of the opponents of the measure, lest the Government uses the pressure and exhaustion of the end of the session to carry its unjust proposals.