THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1880.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1870, 20 February 1880, Page 2

THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1880.

SThe proceedings at the annual meeting of the Canterbury Tramway Company recently held discloses a state of things which wo think will require some little explanation. We have in previous articles called attention to the damage which was being done to the streets by the operations of the Company, a damage which cannot be repaired, and also to the inconvenience to which pedestrians were exposed. But while this was so, wo were under the impression—one we believe shared by the majority of the ratepayers —that the City Council under the agreement entered into had no power to interfere. But the proceedings at the meeting on Wednesday throws a different light altogether on the matter. It now appears that the inconveniences and annoyances to which the public have been subjected are due to the laches of the City Council itself. The members of that body have so far neglected their duty to the ratepayers as to allow the contractor to largely exceed the limit of street to be opened at one time. We are told by one of the shareholders of the Tramway Company, in the coolest possible manner, that the reason these grave breaches of the agreement between the city and the company were allowed to pass unnoticed by the Council, was that the latter had great faith in the directors. In plain English, because the directors of this private company, who were damaging the property of the ratepayers and endangering their lives and limbs, were men holding a certain position in the community they were not t® be called to account. We do not know what defence the Council will make to this serious charge, made publicly, and not denied. The Council is entrusted by the ratepayers with the control of the streets, and to them the citizens look for their conservation. But what do we find being done ? Why, that in the busiest thoroughfare in the city great chasms are opened and kept open for some considerable time with the great risk of accident, and that very slight means are taken to secure the safety ef passers by. There can scarcely bo any stronger comment than the words of the Chairman himself—- “ He might say that the City Council had been very good indeed, scarcely taking any notice of the delay and continued interruption to traffic, though at one time he was hoping they would interfere.” Here then we have plainly and unmistakeably a statement of the utter ignoring on the part of the Council of what was plainly their duty. The agreement entered into contained certain provisions. These the Council in the interests of tho ratepayers should have insisted on being strictly carried out. To do otherwise was a breach of tho trust confided to them, which we fancy it will bo somewhat difficult to excuse. Wo are not going to discuss now the wisdom or otherwise of tho arrangement entered into between the Council and the company by which the latter got the use of the public streets for forty-two years for nothing. That has been settled and done with. But we do think the Council has been most seriously to blame for the apathy and indifference to the interests of the citizens which they have displayed in connection with this matter. We confess we are unable to sea the least excuse for the course adopted. The injury and inconvenience suffered by the citizens has been so patent that no one could avoid being aware of its existence. The

duty of the Council, as the representatives of the ratepayers and the administrators of local Government, was perfectly plain. They should at once have insisted on the agreement being strictly adhered to, and. taken measures to compel the contractor to make proper provision to prevent the possibility of accident. They did neither of those things; they wore,to quote the chairman’s words, “ very good to the company, and scarcely took any notice of the delay and continued interruption to the traffic.” We hope the matter will ho brought up on Monday next, and that the members of the Council will give the public some explanation of the reasons which led them to adopt a line of conduct which, on the face of it, appears to be most extraordinary.

The lauding of twenty-five pardoned Communists in Auckland has called forth more strong feeling than any event that has happened for a long time. And naturally so. Nino at least of them are men who have been convicted of crimes against society at large, and the colony has kicked, and will persist in kicking still more strongly, against such an outrageous attempt on the part of the French Government as that of shunting such men on the colony. The deliberate manner in which the deed was done, and the fear that a recurrence of the transaction may occur at intervals suitable to the authorities of Now Caledonia, render New Zealand colonists still more irritable. It is indeed unbearable that we should he open to this description of visitation. Our criminal class is sufficiently numerous as it is, without our having added choice exotic specimens. It will be the part of the Imperial Government to interfere in the matter with despatch and firmness, and it will be the part of the colony to suffer no delay or compromise to occur. The example set by the colonists of Australia in the early days is instructive, and shows what popular indignation when roused can effect. In 1849 the colonists at the Capo of Good Hope refused to allow a shipload of prisoners to land, and they were carried to Hobart Town. The Harkaway with a similar cargo was, says Mr. Clarke, in his handbook of Australia, refused permission to land in Sydney, and the Raudolf was ordered away from Melbourne in the same year by Mr LaTrobe, who thereupon was thanked by the very Town Council that had petitioned for his recall, andshortly the“ Australasian League” was formed which declared that transportation to any of the colonies ought for ever to cease. The publication of a despatch from Earl Grey, feeling his way towards a renewal of transportion, raised a storm of indignation throughout New South Wales, and the people went to great lengths in the matter. Finally, in 1853, a despatch announced the cessation of transportation throughout Australia. It was the determined attitude of the colonists alone that settled the question. We have not brought forward these instances as strictly applying to the present case. We may rely on the Home Government acting with vigour and firmness in the matter of these French Communists, but still it will he well for them to recognize tho fact that colonists in 1880 are no less determined to keep convicts off their shores than they were in 1849.