TRAMWAYS BILL.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 880, 28 July 1910, Page 2

TRAMWAYS BILL.

"UNNECESSARY AND UNCALLED FOR." VIEWS OF MR, C. M. GRAY. (By Telegraph.—Special Correspondent.! Auckland, July 26. Mr. C. M. Gray, a member of the Christchurch Tramway Board, several times Mayor of Christchurch, and a member for Christchurch in the last House of Representatives, is at present visiting Auckland. In an interview on the subjept of the Tramways Bill, introduced into Parliament by the present Minister for Public "Works (Hon. R. M'Kenzie), he said: "In 1907, when I was a"member of the House, I took active steps to oppose the Bill then introduced by the Hon. Jas. M'Gowan (Miniser for Public Works), with the result that the second reading discussion of the Bill was carried by a majority of only one, including the Ministers,»and the Bill was dropped. I look upon the Bill as being aotoiulely unnecessary and uncalled tor, and I am at a loss to understand who asked for it. It was not demanded by the people nor by the employees. It seems to' me that the inordinate lust for power and patronage dominating the present Government aud the desire to centralise everything in "Wellington are the two ' principal reasons for bringing the-Bill into existence. That is the thing in a nutshell." : Mr. Gray went on to refer to tho position of the Christchurch Tramway Board and to the eli'eel that a number'of new Govermeiital restrictions might have on the financial position of existing tramway systems.

■ "My board," he said, "has raised and spent nearly half a million of money,-and has pledgfjd Hs 'property as security for the payment of interest and sinking fund. I say it Jjecoraca a very sorious mattei if as the result of Government interference we have to make default in our payment of interest, and 1 would like to know whether the Government are prepared to'follow the thiijg to its logical conclusion and. to guarantee payment of our interest and sinking fund 'in the event of such default. • .

"As regards the examination of motoiiiien, I . understand that under the present system they have to puss a very severe test before they are placed in charge of a tramcar, and-from - what I have seen here a much severer test is required in Auckland owing to the necessity of negotiating the hills than in a flat place like Christchurch.

"Then, again, the inspection of rolling stock is provided' for in the Tramway Act of 1594,. but although periodical inspection is provided for there in Christchurch,'our 'rolling stock is inspected every night. *■ Every car is overhauled, and, in addition to being cleaned, is testshow that it is in.a thorough state of efficiency to start work next morning. When I questioned Mr. M'Gowan in Parliament, lie said that, his Bill provided only for quarterly inspection. I retorted that the inspection in Christchurch was nightly, and that 'his Bill w<as quite unnecessary.

-, "If the Bill passes and becomes law, the already large army of Government inspectors will be added to by inspectors of tramwa3's. ■ , "Summed, up, I consider the effect of the Bill will be to 'discourage tho construction of tramways in the Dominion of New Zealand."

On. the subject of delays and annoyances and cf loss of efncienoy entailed by robbing local bodies of their power in order to aggrandise tlie central authority, Sir. Gray told how the Public Works Department had refused to pas? a section of tho Christchnrch tramways in spite of repeated applications. At last he made .personal inquiries in Wellington and was told by the Department that the whole of the line would have to be pulled up be- . cause &ilb. rails had been laid instead of the 921b. rails provided for in the Order-in-Council. He replied that the Order-in-Council provided for-G-ilb. rails, not 921b. roils. The. Department, oji.investigating, iound this was the case,. and climbed ,d0wn,:..,1n interfering .with the finance of tramways there is not only the margin of profit to consider, but' whether the .alliance ..for. depreciation is sufficiently ample. ; Mr. .Grciy points out that in some cases, the controlling bodies of tramways may bo met. with, greater charges under this, head than they bargained' for, and their • difficulties are suffioient already without having the.superimposed burden mi undefined Ministerial . restrictions.

EVIDENCE TO BE TAKEN. The Hon. R. Mlvenzie gave notice in the House of Representatives yesterday of his intention to move the second reading of tho Tramways .Bill, pro forma, on the next sitting day. Tho Bill - would then to ■referred to the Labour Bills Committee Mr. Wilford (Hutt) : Will you allow evidencc to be called? Mr. M'Kenzie: Yes. As a great deal of opposition was aroused by the Tramways Bill brought down by Mr. M'Kenzie last Tear, it is probable that no small quantity of' evidence will require to bo heard.