THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1880. THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE TRAMWAY QUESTION.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2055, 24 September 1880, Page 2

THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1880. THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE TRAMWAY QUESTION.

The manner in which the City Council dealt with the question of the South belt cabstand the other evening is not, to our mind, in any way the proper one. The Council appear to he, as regards this subject, very like a number of little boys going bathing on a cold morning. They hover around the brink, but are afraid to go boldly on with what, sooner or later, they will bo compelled to undertake. The half-hearted manner in which all tramway business has been dealt with by the Council is too well known to need any comment from us. But while this is so the ratepayers are beginning to get tired of the way in which the Tramway Company appear to dictate to the Council. It is true they do not do so plainly, but practically the Company say to the City Council and the public—“We are going to do just as we like.” This is, no doubt, a very pleasant position for the Company, so long as it lasts; but with respect to the South belt stand, as we have pointed out time after time, the public are considerably inconvenienced. The Tramway Committee have in their possession, we understand, two opinions from legal gentlemen in the city on the question of the rights of the Tramway Company under the deed of concession. One of these is from a gentleman whose legal ability and sound judgment are well known, and the other is from the city solicitors. We should like to know why these opinions have not been made public. Is it or is it not a fact that the opinion of the legal gentleman to whom we have referred is most strongly and conclusively opposed to the idea that the Tramway Company, like Alexander Selkirk, are monarchs of all they survey ? Is it not, further, a fact that this opinion settles at once and for ever the disputes or disagreements which have taken place and would, if acted upon, put an end to the present unsatisfactory state of matters between the Council and the cabmen ? These are questions we should like, in the interests of the public, to see answered. The opinion has been obtained by a public body and paid for out of the ratepayers’ money. The latter, therefore, have a right to know what is its contents. There is no reason whatever for all this mystery, because the question is one in which the public are very largely interested, concerning as it does their right to the public highways. Wo are surprised that his Worship the Mayor, who has deservedly earned for himself during his municipal career a high character for independence and outspokenness, should have allowed this matter to be hushed up in the way it has been. Probably, in the interests of the Tramway Company, it might not bo advisable that the public should know their exact rights, but wo do say that to keep back on this account—if this be the reason—information which the citizens have a right to receive is a breach of faith on the part of the Council with their constituents. On all other subjects, so so soon as a legal opinion has been taken, it is laid on the table, but in this matter the question is dropped as though it burnt the fingers of the members. Wo hope yet that there is some member of the Council not suffering from a severe attack, of Brown ague, who will move that the two opinions wo have referred to be published, and that this matter of the South belt stand, which has been so long in abeyance, will bo settled without delay, and once for all.