THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1880.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2034, 31 August 1880, Page 2

THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1880.

The collision between the cabmen and the Tramway, which to those who look beneath the surface must not have been at all unexpected has come to pass. There are about the matter some very peculiar points to which we desire to draw attention. First, then, there can be no doubt that, to a very large extent, the City Council are to blame for not having, long ere this, dealt with the question of the stand near the Railway station, which has more than once been brought under their notice. The Council well know, as indeed do the public, that the proclaimed stand for cabs is cut across by the Tramway line, and that, therefore, cabmen have . to leave a stand the right to remain on which thoy have paid for to make way for unlicensed vehicles. Not only so, but the Tramway draws right np to the kerb in front of the station, monopolising the whole of it, to the exclusion of cabmen. Such a manifest injustice should never have been allowed to continue, and would not with any body except the Tramway Company, who appear to rule the municipal roast with a rod of iron. Clause 49 of the Tramways Act provides that " The local authority shall have the like power of making and enforcing rules and regulations, and of granting licenses with respect to all carriages using the tramways, and to all drivers, conductors, and other persons having charge of or using the same, and to the stands for the same as thoy are for the time being entitled to make, enforce, and grant with (respect to hackney carriages, and the drivers and other persons having tho

charge thereof," &e. This, we take it, simply means that the Tramway is subject to the same by-laws as exist with regard to cabs, and also to any penalties incurred for breach of the same. Thus if a man ply for hire with an unlicensed cab he is liable, and no doubt would speedily be made to pay, a fine. But the Tramway, which has now been running for months, has not been licensed, nor has the Council used the power granted to it under clause 49, as stated above. The position then comes to this that here is an unlicensed vehicle, deliberately breaking the law unheeded, and, further than this, driving off a proclaimed stand men who pay a license fee to the city, and who are subject to the provisions of the by-law. "We would ask, is this fair or just P The City Council last night evidently thought it was not, and we are glad to perceive that the rights of the cabmen stand in a fairer way of being justly dealt with than they have hitherto done. The municipal conscience appears to be awakened in this matter. The cab interest is not such a powerful one as the Tramway interest, but the Council are elected, to ! deal out even-handed justice to all, whether rich or poor.

Aud now we come to another remarkable phase of this case. "We are told that, with respect to the so-called obstruction on Saturday, the chairman of the Board of Directors of the Tramway Company consulted their solicitors, who advised them that, if the cars run into a cab whilst obstructing the line, the City Council would be responsible for the damage. This may .or may not be good law, but what wo want to point out to the citizens is that the gentlemen giving this opinion are no less personages than the City Solicitors. How they can reconcile it to advise two parties whose interests are likely to be exactly and entirely conflicting, we do not know. Some little time ago, on the motion of Cr. Bishop, a letter was addressed to the City Solicitors, pointing out that they werejalso retained by the Drainage Board, Board of Health, Tramway Company, Avon Road Board, and others, with whom, in the course of business, it was probable the City Council was likely to come into antagonism, and asking for whom they would act in such a case. The answer was that they would act in all these cases for the City Council. Now, we find them advising one of the public bodies referred to as against the City Council, whoso officers they are. To say the least of it, this seems very anomalous, but not more so than some things which have been done. For instance, a certain legal document has been drawn up, we will say by the solicitors to the Drainage Board, submitted to the City Council, and by them reforred to the City Solicitors for their opinion thereon, the legal gentlemen concerned in both cases being precisely the same persons. "We do not know whether the Council will consider the arrangement quite so satisfactory as they appear to have done, when they see the opinion of their own officer delivered as the adviser of the Tramway. If the Chairman of tho Works Committee, as he is very fond of doing, takes a legal opinion to-day on tho point, no doubt the Council will receive one advising them that the Tramway Company have no locus standi, boing unlicensed. The question now in dispute has been urged on the Council more than once. It is perfectly well known to the members that the Tramway Company have run their line through a stand proclaimed by tho Council, and that though this has existed for months past, no steps have been taken to provide tho cabmen with another stand or to make such arrangement as will enable them to earn their living. At present the tramway not only uses the streets of the city, but, unlicensed itself, attempts to drive licensed persons off their stand. Such a state of things is manifestly wrong. All this trouble might have been prevented had the City Council acted with firmness and decision, and dealt with the tramway as they would with any other vehicles plying for hire within the city. But for some reason or other the Tramway Company—or perhaps its chairman—has acted on the Council like the traditional bogey with regard to children. It, appears to hare frightened them into doing nothing, and hence the trouble. And now the Council have to face the question. Let us hope the timidity it has always shown when dealing with the Tramway Company will disappear.