THE TRAMWAYS CONTROVERSY.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXV, Issue 10314, 25 January 1927, Page 6

THE TRAMWAYS CONTROVERSY.

(To the Editor:), ' Sir,—Little did I dream that- my last letter to your journal upon tramway matters contained such power in political argument to call for a solo leading article. You certainly diagnose correctly when you credit me with being a “die-hard,” and one of those determined to fight this battle to the last ditch. I at least have a clearly defined policy of -.“Municipally Elected Representatives” transacting “municipal business.” shat policy is nicipal principles.” That policy is evidently non est as far as our Eorough Councillors are concerned at present. I notice that your journal submits the idea that the Council cannot do anything in preparation lor a definite transport alternative until the Government has granted a revoking order. Dees your journal mean to°suggest that our Councillors have no legal right to discuss an alteration in our transport system, whether a revocation has been applied for or not. I should like some learned person to publish the authority upon which sucli an idea can he based. Wo are faced with the fact that our Councillors have no official substitute to offer as an alternative to our present tram system. X don’t think your journal will deny that. Nevertheless, I will brush up your memory upon ft little detail that has possibly become wholesale property in the public mind, but which your journal should he aware of. I refer to the documents which have been forwarded to the Government, but which, under the circumstances, are awaiting possible approval should the recent poll be declared valid. One of those documents contains a plea that'our Gisborne Borough Council shall be permitted to nominate its own date to discontinue the trams should the revocation be granted. The reason quoted is ‘‘because the desire to have buses running at the earliest possible date.” This little detail shows that, although our Council has not moved, discussed, and adopted “any” alternative system to the present, the inference has been conveyed to the Government that such “lias” been adopted. The obvious reason for this underhand suggestion of such an alternative having been provided for is that no levelheaded Government would allow a “public” service to he discontinued until the public need had been 'provided for by a substitute. lam truly, surprised at the suggestion that a movement at once to supply a definite alternative is considered illegal by any intelligent person. In my small estimation the Council has erred badly from the very beginning of this tram problem. To niv mind the first move should have been a direct one to see whether a change in the municipal system was desirable and likely to be publicly supported, .and the form such a proposed change -would take should have been discussed and adopted upon strict municipal lines before any voting by either ratepayers or householders was resorted to. This failure to exercise straight-forward municipal principles and methods of procedure has led to a lot ol unnecessary expense in order to rectify the determined efforts of the tram scrappers to get behind the' law and just consideration of the public, for whose benefit the trams were authorised, and for whose benefit the system,must continue, “even at a loss,” until the Government thinks otherwise. Perhaps, Sir, you can answer a query which no tram scrapper has been able to answer. “Has the tram system failed to fulfil the object for which it was authorised?” I would further ask the solution to a query I publicly, asked Mr. Burnard to answer, but got no straightforward answer:— “What amount o t financial loss incurred in running our tram system does the law permit the Government to consider, as contra to ‘public service’ as an excuse for revoking the system ” These two queries were publicly put by me at meetings prior to the poll, and they have proved unanswerable to the tram scrappers, even by the legal section. I have always maintained tliaf if buses are to be the thing, the Council should, upon principle, discuss a municipallyowned service first, and there is no legal obstacle for such being done now. We have no official substitute. The Council desire to determine any proposed date of discontinuance. The system lias not failed in its authorised object and must be continued “even at a loss” in public interests. With these facts evident, and the system apparently paying its way and expert opinion allowing efficient service for a further five years at a nominal running maintenance, I think I am justified in supporting Cr. DeCosta’s motion. The adoption of that motion would certainly give our Council time to rectify,.many of the breaches of true municipal principles which occurred over this tram problem. . It certainly does not enhance public faith, in the “private enterprise” suggestions when we find a bus proprietor, who lias advertised in your columns that lie was prepared to 1 run a service for seven years, if nec--1 essary, turning round and applying to the Council for municipilisation ot his plant.—l am, yours, etc., “DUMMY MATE.” [“Dummy Mate” must surely see that it would be wiser for the Council to defer consideration of its plans to ■provide a substitute for the trams until the question of the validity or otherwise of the recent poll be determined. Yes, tlie tram system has | tailed to fulfil the object for. which it was authorised. The Borough authorities were expected under the Ot-der-in-Council to give the public a more complete system than that provided. The question of the extent ot financial loss permitted has to be weighed with that of the inadequacy of the system and the fact that the I loss cannot fail to grow and become more burdensome.—Ed. “G.T.”]