STREET TRAMWAYS.

Evening Star, Issue 4129, 22 May 1876, Page 3

STREET TRAMWAYS.

The question of street tramways was further considered at a meeting 1 of the City Council held for that purpose this afternoon. Present—The Mayor (in the chair) and a full Council. The Mayor mentioned that since the last meeting some very instructive documents—one from Mr Street and one from Mr A. W. Morris—had been received. As a set-off against them, there bod also been received a petition against street tramways. Cr. Grant contended that it was improper to take petitions at adjourned meetings. Crs. L aby and Beeves were of opinion that the question should be fully ventilat' d; and that all that was before the Council—whether pro, or con.— should be read.

Mr A. W. Morris wrote in answer to the Council’s invitation that he would state his experience of street tramways, that he bad found them of great convenience, much more so than traps and omnibuses. Mr C. U. Street had travelled on tramways in London, Edinburgh, Dublin, and Glasgow. He bad found them exceedingly pleasant to travel in, and ingress and egress very easy. In no place had he heard complaints as tp danger to pedestrians. On the contrary, they were much safer than ordinary omnibuses or cars. A petition against street tramways, signed by Wm. Asher, Manor Place, and about 250 others, was read.

On Cr. Quick’s motion a vote of thanks was accorded to Messrs Morris and Street for their kindness injreplying to the Council’s request. Cr. Leabt in moving that applications be invited f om persons willing to construct tramways, stated lus. opinion that the persons who had signed the petition were not fully informed what tramways really were. Had they had opportunities of witnessing the advantages of tramways their names would not have been found attached to the petition, which had emanated from persons interested iu cabs in the City, wheelwrights, &c. With only 1,62,000 at their disposal, L 25.000 of which would be required for a Town Hall and L 2,000 for Princes street, it would be unwise for the Corporation to spend L 1.0,000 to lay down a street of tramways, when private enterprise could be found to do it for them.

Cr. Quick seconded the motion. Cr. Beeves thought that the Council would, in the course of a few years, very much regret having given such a monopoly to any company, or pro* moters. If a thorough system of drainage were determined on, the street tramways would bo very much interfered with. He dwelt on the cost of monopolies when purchased from private individuals aud moved “ That the City Council undertake the construction of tramways under the Tramways Act, 1872, aud that the Mayor be authorised to take the necessary steps required uuder that Act." The Corporation should construct the lino, and let the right of working them. Cr. Gibsok seconded the amendment. Cr, Is > ac was not afraid of a vote being caught by the tissue of fallacies" laid before them by the mover of the amendment. On a vote being taken, the motion was carried by sev ’n votes agaiust five; the voting being—For the mobior : Cra. Leary, Quick, Grant, Isaac, Chanman, Campbell, and Mollison. For the amendment—Crs. Reeves, Gibson, Brown, Woodland, and Roberts. The Council resolved itself into committee to consider the terms wnich should be received for the formation and working ofjtramway