CORRESPONDENCE TRAMWAY MATTERS.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2232, 28 May 1881, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE

TRAMWAY MATTERS.

To the hditor of the Globe.

SIK, —Although, as a rule, Ido not take any ro ice of anoaymous letters, I cannot help heartily endorsing the view of your correspondent in last evening’s GIiOBB, when he regrets that the discussion on the tramway by-law was not reported in the papers. It is a great pity that when a discussion of so much importance comes to the front the reporters should one and all get up and march out, leaving it for any ratepayer interested in the question to go and hunt up any information he may require in the books and papers at the town clerk’s office.

I do not Intend to be drawn Into any farther discussion over this by-law question, but as a systematic attempt Is being made in all the papers to mislead the public on this matter, I trust you will allow a short space for explanation and defence. 1. A tramway by-law was necessary to legalise the standing places and to regulate the use of them, as set forth in the Act.

2. As to licensing the drivers and conductors, there is a clause Inserted In the bylaw arranging that the whole amount of fees payable by the company shall be commuted for one sum, payable yearly, the amount to be fixed year by year, the issue of licenses being left entirely in the hands of the company, subject only to the official signature being added. 3. The by-law committee acted under the general instructions of the Council when they proposed the by-law, and the chairman, when he laid the first copy on the table, stated that they had merely drafted the clauses, and left it to the Council to deal with them as thought best.

4. After the commutation clause had been proposed (it was moved by a member of the much-abused by-law committee), discussed, and agreed to, the whole of the clause was passed without material alteration, and with only one division being called for. 5. The action of the by-law as it stands will not in any way interfere with, or be prejudicial to the management of, the Tramway Company, on the contrary, it will in many ways strengthen their hands by enabling them to take action under it. 6. Many of the points provided for by the by-law were also the subject of regulation by the Deed of Concession, and the order in Council, with this important difference, that there was no penalty clause inserted in either the one or the other, 7. Ho that under the Deed of Concession or Order in Council, any breach of the cove; nants could only be met by a costly procedure in the Supreme Court—a practically useless method, as no cue would be likely to arise of sufficient importance to justify the Council in asking for a forfeiture of rights. 8. There is discretionary power given to the magistrate in the matter of fines, but any fines that may at any time be Inflicted, would go the City treasury, as is the case in all instances of breach of by-law. Any man who does the work (especially when it is a public work) entrusted to him faithfully, and to the beat of his ability, most I know always expect some share of adverse criticism, but it is rather curious that in the present instance a number of anonymous letters should have appeared, all of the same type, and all apparently emanating from the same mind. If the gentlemen who wrote these letters had the honesty to pat their names to their ideas, the company would have a better opportunity of judging of the value of the advice given in several of them, namely, that the company should break one of the most important covenants in the Governor’s Order in Council with a view to excite spurious sympathy. In oonolueion, I wish to say that there has never been any desire on the part of the bylaw committee, or of the Council (as far as I know) to thwart or prejudice or harrass the company in any way whatever. In all matters, when the company has asked for any definite point, it has been granted at once as soon as it was seen to be beneficial to all concerned. Tours, &0., NELSON K. CHBBRILL.