THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, APRIL 20,1880.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1920, 20 April 1880, Page 2

THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, APRIL 20,1880.

We arc quite at a loss to understand how tho Mayor and the Works Committee can come to the conclusion that the Count il has no power or authority over tho construction of loop linos by the Tramway Company. It is true that there is no specific provision under which tho Council is charged icith authority over tho construction of loop linos, but thoro is abundant provision giving them power of supervision, and indeed to some extent authority over tho whole of tho traffic and construction of the tramway. Firstly, then, tho Act provides that tho local authority may appoint a supervisor of tho work of construction of any tramway. Tho Legislature therefore clearly contemplated that tho local authority should have some amount of controlling power s in laying down thoso linos, or the power thus given would simply bo a farco. This being so, it follows—always remembering that thero is no specific x>ro-

vision with regard to loop lines in tho Act —that in the construction o£ these lines the local authority would have the power, whore they incommoded public traffic, or inconvenienced the public, to object to the construction. This seems to us perfectly clear on tho face of tho clause of the statute. The local authority on their supervisor reporting that the public traffic was likely to bo impeded or tho citizens resident near the proposed loop lino injured in their trade, could, it seems to us, decline to sanction the construction. Additional power beyond this clause is also granted to tho local authority. It is provided that tho permission of the local authority shall bo obtained for breaking up tho streets. Thus as a loop or additional lino could not bo constructed without breaking up tho streets, the consent of the local authorities is hero again made a condition precedent to tho construction of a loop lino. On these two points alone wo contend wo wore perfectly right in assuming that tho Council had authority, to some extent, at least, over tho construction of loop linos despite tho conclusion of tho Mayor and the works committee aided by tho surveyor, who, by the way, is often called upon to give quasi legal opinions as to tho construction of Acts. But, setliug aside specific instructions contained in tho Act, it must bo evident that tho whole tenor of tho measure is in the direction of giving the local authorities full power to seo that local interests are not injured, or injured as lightly as possible. Tho spirit of tho Act, looked at broadly, is to conserve to the public their public and individual rights, and when an avoidable injury, such as tho blocking out of a ratepayer’s shop from general custom, is done, tho individual lias every right to complain of tho timidity of tho Couucil in defending tho rights of tho citizens. It is not as if tho running of a loop lino close into tho pavement wore a necessity. There are other ways of gaining what is necessary, and wo trust that tho Mayor may alter tho impression gained “by a cursory perusal of Act,” and see his way to advising tho regulation of these loop lines, and that tho Works Committee will follow in his wake. If by sections 100 and 101 of the Act, to which wo referred in our last article on tho subject, the police or the local authority have power to regulate tho traffic of tho promoters of tho tramway as well as of other persons, it seems absurd that, as a commencement of operations, tho Company should bo allowed to make linos that in their very nature must, when used, prove to bo an obstruction and a nuisance.