THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1880.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1873, 24 February 1880, Page 2

THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1880.

The discussion last night in the City Council on tho remarks made at the late meeting of the Tramway Company brought out some very peculiar points. In the first place it appeared, in the course of the remarks made, that the contractor for the tramway has not only endangered the lives of the citizens, but has also been allowed the use of the steam road-roller without paying for it, and without subscribing to any conditions. Though evidently some one is responsible for this, it appeared last night that, between the Mayor, the Chairman of the Works Committee, and the Surveyor, the Council were unable to apportion the responsibility. It is true that Cr. Gapes desired—nay, was eager—to be made a martyr of, but Councillors did not see tho utility of such a course, so his proposed self-sacrifice did not take place. It does seem strange, however, that so valuable a portion of the Corporation plant as the steam road-roller should have been allowed to bo taken possession of by a contractor, not only without payment, but unfettered by any conditions. If equal facility is afforded to other persons desirous of the use of the roller, the ratepayers are not likely to find the revenue derivable from this source a noticeable item on the credit side. This, however, is by the way. Tho interesting feature of the whole discussion was the attitude of the Tramway Company towards tho City Council as regards the contractor. We now learn for the first time that the Tramway Company consider, that having let this contract to Mr Barrett, they have no control over him, but that he should be considered a servant of the Council. Tho absurdity of this proposition is so patent on the face of it that it is astonishing to find any sensible men seriously making such a statement. The agreement respecting the right of running over the streets is between the Council and tho Company. Every clause of the Tramway Act has reference to the negotiations necessary between the local bodies and the Company, and it is therefore childish to talk of the Company not being responsible to the City Council for tho acts of their contractor. It is with the Company and not with the contractor that the City Council have to deal, and tho sooner the shareholders recognise this fact the better. But while this is so, we cannot help thinking that some degree of blame rests upon the Works Committee, as the executive body of tho Council in this matter. Day after day complaints have been made of tho annoyance and danger to tho citizens caused by tho violation by the contractor of the clause of the Act respecting the length of street to be opened up at one time. Yet no stops were taken by tho Works Committee under the powers granted to them by the Act to interfere. Week after week tho members of the City Council have asked questions on this matter, and the Surveyor has written to the Engineer. What has boon the result ? Why, that no notice whatever has been taken by the contractor or the engineer of the remonstrances. Dangerous pitfalls, insecurely

protected, have been left open in the most frequented thoroughfares; the traffic in the streets has been unduly obstructed, and yet nothing has been done by the Council, as represented by the Works Committee, to enforce obedience to the terms of the Act. Indeed, the Works Committee do not appear to have been aware of the provisions of the Act, as the clause giving power to appoint a supervisor, at the cost of the promoters of any tramway, seemed to take them by surprise. They have tacitly—for beyond a verbal intimation to some one connected with the works, nothing has been done—allowed the contractor to open up as much of the streets as ho pleased and leave them in whatever condition seemed to him best, to the groat annoyance and danger of the people. It is therefore right that some share of blame at least should attach to the committee. We trust that the experience gained by the construction of this first section will teach the City Council a lesson, and that they will now strictly enforce the law. They have power to appoint a supervisor of the works at the cost of the Tramway Company. As events have turned out, this seems to bo a most necessary and salutary provision, and one which should be taken advantage of by the Council. The shareholders of the Tramway Company have been very loud in expressing their disapproval of the apathy shown by the Council in the matter of these works, and therefore they, in common with the great body of the citizens, will be glad to see such a step taken with regard to further extensions. With such a chock as this on the Company, the Council will be able effectually to put a stop to the recurrence of such street dangers and discomforts as have existed along the line of tramway during the past few weeks.