HUTT TRAMS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 856, 30 June 1910, Page 5

HUTT TRAMS.

TOTAL MAJORITY IN FAVOUR. BUT PROPOSAL NOT CARRIED. "Not carried" was the substance of the verdict of tho Hutt Valley ratepayers touching tho .£85,00!) loan proposal for tram'ivays for the district, though the totals for Hutt and Petone combined gave a majority of two votes in favour of the loan. The poll was taken yesterday, and tho figures are published below, together with those portions of tin Hutt V-jlky Tramway Act, which renders the fetal majority inoperative. Voting was brisk both .at Hutt and Petone, motor and taxi-cars being kept busy conveying ratepayers to and from tho various booths. The recent hostile meetings of the Anti-Tramway League, together with tho explanatory meetings held by the Tramway Board, apparently had had the effect of woiking up an interest in the matter not previously evinced in tho municipal events of the Valley. Out of about 2000 people on the total roll 1167 recorded their votes. Contrary to expectations, the majority of tho voUs recorded at Lower Hutt were in favour of the loan, whilst at Petone a surprise came ill the shape of a majority against the proposal. Tho details of the voting were as follow:—

The Voting. Pelone: For tho proposal 215 Against 275 Informal 10 Majority against 60 Lower Hutt: For the proposal ... 3GO Against 298 Informal 9 Majority in favour of proposal... 02 Total vote: For the proposal ... 570 Against 573 Informal 19 Majority for the proposal 2 Board's Chairman Interviewed. Interviewed after the result of the poll had been announced, Mr. J. W. M'Ewan (chairman of the Hutt Valley Tramway Board) stated that tho poll had boeu indicisivc, as the majority of two votes in the aggregate would indicate that the feeling throughout the district was verv evenly divided. The result further proved that trams were desirable in the Hutt Valley. Whether it would have beon wiser for the Tramway Board to have placed a much smaller loan before tho ratepayers was a question about which there was much difference of opinion. In reference to the impression abroad in Petone, that the carrying of tho proposal would increase the liabilities of the ratepayers, Mr. M'Ewan stated that this was not the case. As to the future intentions of the board, it was quite reasonable to supposo, under the circumstances, that the board would be willing to again submit a proposal for a trainwav loan, but. as to the nature of such a proposal, Mr. M'Ewan would not hazard au opinion. A meeting of tho board will bo held at an early date to consider the position. • It was necessary, under the Hutt Valley Tramway Act of WOS, that each sub-dis-trict (viz., Hutt and Petone) should have a clear majority, and in consequence of the GO votes cast against the proposal at Petone, nothing had been carried. Mr. M'Ewan, continuing, said that ho regretted tho splitting of tho two districts, as it necessarily created a considerable amount of coufjision in as much as there were ratepayers on both Hutt and Petone Boroueh rolls. If the board doomed it advisable to again test the feeling of the ratepayers, he would strongly advocate the compilation of two new sub-district rolls. Why the Majority is Inoperative. In conjunction with Mr. M'Ewan's remarks, certain portions of the Hutt Valley Tramways Act aro of interest. Section 47 states:— "Tho proposal to borrow money shall bo deemed to havo been carried if the tolal number of valid votes recorded at the poll in each of Ihe subdistricts shall, in that sub-district, exceed the number of those recorded against the same." In this case, although there was a total majority in favour of the proposal, it was only on the aggregate, and not in "each of the sub-districts."