COUNTY TRAMWAYS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2185, 8 May 1908, Page 2

COUNTY TRAMWAYS.

COUNCIL APPROVES OF AIR REES’S SCHEME. A special meeting of the Cook County Council was held yesterday afternoon at the Council ‘Chambers to consider the objections against the tramway proposals of Mr W. L. Rees. ‘Present: Hon. -Cant. Tucker (in the chair), and Crs. \V. D. -Lysnar, A. F. -Matthews, W. D. S. MacDonald, T. Holden, 11. White and R. iShorratt. Messrs W. L. Rees and W. A. Limbrick were also present. Tlio original application of Mr Rees for .permission to lay a private tram-' way from Wnikoliu station to Alotu with branch lines, -was read, and a petition favoring the proposals was received signed by the following owners of property: Messrs T. Halbert, P. McLoiighlin, F. Hall, 11. To ICani Pore, Chas. Busckc, Wi Pore and H. C. Jackson (trustees for Manga-t-u 3 and 4), 11. Hei (for the owner of AVahakapapaki), T. A. Coleman (East Coast Commissioner), W. Maxwell, W. H. Benner, lan Simson (for C. W. Turner) and T. Adair;

Objections were received from Messrs E. Richardson, G. Bedpath, H utchinson Bros., Jonathan Hutchinson, and from a number of Raukaroa settlors and Messrs Burgess, Green and Marshall. A letter was also received from Mr W. A. Limbrick asking tho (Council to see that Mr Rees’proposals would' not interfere with tho permission already accorded to him.

Mr W. L. Rees said that Mr Limbrick and he had come to an agreement regarding their tramway schemes. lie would suggest that it would be a saving of time if tlio - two schemes were taken together, 'Cr. W. D. Lysnar said -that there seemed to be an absolute misapprehension amongst the objectors that the -proposed line would interfere with traffic. With regard to the objection on -the ground of taking their land for the tramway ho considered that that must not stand in the way of the progro'a of the district. He saw; no reason in any of the objections, except one, and it was a bogey that it was going to retard the progress of tho railway line. The only reasonable objection was the fact that no one should have a monopoly and that the Council should reserve the right to take over the tramway at a valuation. The question of monopoly, he thought, was a legitimate one for them to consider. He suggested that the promoters be allowed to erect a temporary tramway for two years and after that to erect a lino to comply with the Tramways Act and that then tho Council should have the -right to resume the- line upon payment of valuation. He would move that permission be -granted to the applicants, on the condition that iMr Wilkinson, the other applicant for the -line, he protected, and that’after two years tho Council retain the right to take over the line at a- valuation.

Mr Rees contended that there would be absolutely no monopoly. At' the end of the two years he would be prepared to commence a permanent line to meet the -requirements of tlio Tramways Act, and to hand it over to the Council on condition that he was either granted a lease of the line at, say £limj per year, or «rso a running .right over the Rue. ‘He claimed that the lino would not in any way retard the building of -the railway hut, on the other hand, would materially, assist in its speedy advancement. _ Tho chairman read extracts from theh Public Works Act and said that the question of .purchasing land could be left to the applicant, the objector, and the Resident Magistrate. -It had nothing to do with the Council. He was not in favor of any monopoly even for two years. . Cr. Lysnar moved that the right to lay a- temporary tramway be granted, on condition that a permanent line fulfilling the conditions of the Tramways Act, he commenced at the end of two yea^. Cr. MacDonald said that Cr. Lysriar said.one -thing, Alr.Rees said another and that .the application yet another.

' -Cr. Lysnar amended his motion to read that after two years the Council should have the right to take over the tramway without compensation, running rights. to he granted to Mr Rees on stated conditions.

Cr. Holden said he had considerable experience of tramways, and could not see any serious objection >to the line. (He would, second the motion. -Cr. Matthews considered that the objections were childish. A steam tramway would not -be any more likely to frighten a horse than a flooded motor , car. The only hope ving _ permanent access was -by establishing tramways or light railnv.vs. He hoped that the Council would see that all rights were protected and that there was no monopoly. He objected to the form of tho resolution as being too complex. vTlie chairman agreed with Cr. Mat-

Thews and Cr. .Matthews moved as an amendment “that -the Council generally approves that the permission be granted and that the Council meet next Thursday to consider the conditions.”

Cr. Lysnar said that he agreed to the amendment, and -withdrew his motion with the consent of Cr. Holden.

Cr. White suggested that as the line would he in the Waikoliu riding, which was going to become a separate riding, the mattpr should be left over for the present.

-The chairman did not agree with this suggestion.

Cr. Matthews’ motion was then .put to the meeting when it was carried unanimously.