NO TRAMWAY STRIKE.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1322, 28 December 1911, Page 6

NO TRAMWAY STRIKE.

A THREAT WITHDRAWN. , INSPECTOR FULLER'S POSITION. •I'UBM.C INUUIKY I'KOMISED. Tlie throat of (lie AVclliiietou tramway men to strike on New Year's Eve made it ii'wury to cull ail wnerpoiicy meetiiiK hi tlii! City Ciiincil. . This was livid Tin; mectiiijT lvns attrmlcd by the Alii.vor '(Mr. T.. M. Wilford) and OmiK'illnri. .1. , Smith. !•'. Cohen, CI. I'i-o-t, .1. Trevor, .1. (i«.J!*.,., 1,, MMCcilsiie, AY. 11. I'. 11,,r1, f . r , AV. Onnwoii, ]). M'l.aren, 0. Snill<lift>, ~I M| ]j. Vlntthcr. Tl!<> Mn}-»r'.ii|iologiM.il for nulling Iho (ouik-iI l<i S . ; il,,,r in. the holidays. 110 Ji'hl Hint. morning Imd i) coiifercnw with h« enwifivfi of iho'Vrninwuy Kniplovecs , Uii'jn. Inline somethini; liko three hoiir.H ami h<, hfi.l e,nmi,h(.d the follow, nit irrtl.T handed to him by the eocr* wry Ut the union i— December 2", 1511. His Worship the Mayor. Dear Sir.— l. be K to forward you the ' following. i««li,t, nll , lils ., cf l by H|e executive ol the Tramway Kmplov«es' ■ .iiion I.Hj,-.y:-T| P( ,t the MrikMlireat lif:.withdrawn; and that wo ii.lt for n meeting of the council to ho called by you, ami t.hnf. a, definite list of Mm charts bo presented I/) the council iig'iin-l, lfir,p"r:l.or F'lilkr, and tvirlfciiw.• calM to supi«rt ■ Hin tamo. Ine (ivulftnc'j tr ( te , (jivfin in otx>ii council , , for'til'! pros to spwiaJlv rojwrt.. Yonrs , truly, A. SUTHEIiUNI), .S^creUrj. ".Vow that th<>. tf.rcst ha.T Wn withdrawn," aM-A tho Mayor, "I mov* that the-letter lx! rw.-iwl.and ar/jspUd br th'i counrnl. •..'ounoillor ShirWifft dw.Ured him.«rlf very plnavxl to see thir the nnion U>\ token up a rnrjro reisenohlo. a.Mitnrfft sr.d rr-cinded the motion. The rhar.k.i !-,f Mi» council, he said, were fine to the M.-iyr.r, as-on previous, oe/a.iion*, for Hk- vr-r; , speeiil attention h*, g-iven to Hiin matter. The motion wm earrierl nn the vnicrj without further di.vsu.'sion. Cin. the. motion of Councillor it was affrced tb.it- the rwviiwr. <-,ont.iineH in the union's letter should he wnipiictf witli, find that t!is eonn.:;l should siici't, on Jannary I, to heur ch.irgsn ;i?.iinsl: fnepoctor Fulltr. A eood deal hns been he;ird nf lat-e from the' Trainwaya t'nion and from «tli«r f|uartcrs alwnt Fuller, Y,nt nivt_hin? ha; yet hern heard from fiwpwirjr Fuller himn-if. Yesterday he. was invireit to niake a statement for publication. Hi? contented himself with sayin.i that Im would welcome aa opjiortunify ot' meeting any charges laid against him, at a piibl-.fl inquiry. More than this he declined to say at the present juncture. TRAMWAY EMPLOYEES AND 'RATEPAYERS. Sir,—Re tramway troubles, which, appear to be rather frequent. I noticed Eorae short time back that it wa? recommended that in any future applicatioa for.employment in the service a married man should have preference, and particularly one with a family. I am inclined to tliink that this recommendation should go a little further, namely, that a direct ratepayer should also have consideration, then perharr* in time the corporation tramways w.culd employ none but working men ratepayer?, who would naturally be interested" in the ;uccessl"ul working of same, whereas now, well, nuf sed.—l 'a working man eatepayeb.