CORRESPONDENCE

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2233, 30 May 1881, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE

To the Editor of the Olobc. Sir. — l have had my suspicion for a considerable time, that a “ little game ” was being played in the Council. The committee on tramway matters have declaimed, and Councillor Hulbert has shook his head like a great wiseacre, and exclaimed, “ Gentlemen, I am not opposed to tho Tramway Company, who are carrying large numbers of passengers, but let us pass a by-law just to show we have a little brief authority." Now, however, the roU is changed, and that great luminary of wisdom thinks the committee have done what’s right In passing a by-law admittedly objectionable, and that in the face of a letter sent by the directors protesting against It, and also public opinion, what does Councillor Hulbert know about the necessities of the business of a groat public carrying company ? Does he know how, or when they should run, or how many passengers they should carry ? Let the ratepayers answer straight out. The company must know how best to serve ns, s oeing they are responsible for our safety, and not the tramway committee, even when backek up by Councillor Hulbert. When will these unseemly vagaries cease ? When will the little Peddlingtona of Christchurch be relegated to their proper places. Yours, &c,, TRAVELLER. THE COUNCIL AND THE TRAMWAY COMPANY. To the Editor of the Globe, Sib, —In your issue of Friday last Councillor Hulbert stated what many have for a long period suspected, that the by-law committee are making by-laws to conserve the traffic of the tramways —in plain English, an attempting to meddle with the Tramway Company in carrying its passengers. Now, Sir, why have the City Council, on tho motion of this said by-law committee, approved of twenty clauses of a by-law without consulting with or furnishing tho Tramway Company with a copy of this wonderful by-law ; in fact, by the deliberate vote of the Council,“declined to allow the directors of the company to see the draft of tho by-law. And further, the Council have approved of three schedules laid before them without knowing whether they were making impartial provisions for working the tramway. Mr Hulbert has at last come out in his true colors in approving of the tramways under the cloak of protecting the ratepayers. When this time comes, Mr Hulbert will find that tho ratepayers can do without his protection or advice, and will dispense with the three busy bodies composing the by-law committee. I would strongly advise tho Tramway Company to discontinue running their tram cars for a month after the passing of the absurd by-laws which have been shown to me, and then tho ratepayers will be able to have a “go in” at 1 their meddlesome representatives. I am sure no one can mistake what the result will be. Yours, &e., A RATEPAYER, And not a Shareholder. A PERTINENT QUERY. To the Editor of the Globe. Sib,—l, like many more of your readers, was astonished to read, in your Saturday’s issue of the the 28th of May, an account of the reception of a minister and his entire con* gregation from one denomination into another. It would be interesting, to the religious public, to know something of the motives and antecedents of both minister and people, to explain such an extraordinary event in the annals of the Church in New Zealand. Yours, &0., A. O. Christchurch, May 30th, 1881. The following letters appeared in this morning’s “Press THE TRAMWAY. TO THE EDITOR OP THE PRESS. Sib, —Your numerous readers are not likely to be beguiled by the importation of anything like sentiment into the question at i?sue between the City Council and tho Tramway Company, the philanthropy of tho latter being limited to the prosaic expectation of a fair dividend upon the capital subscribed. Failing that, the enterprise will as certainly be abandoned as any other undertaking having tho same condition for its continned prosecution, notwithstanding the many advantages only just beginning to bo appreciated by the public that have followed its introduction. It will be a matter for regret to many if Christchurch, after progressing to its present position of importance and large popula tion, which alone renders it possible to work a line of tramway suoh as has been introduced with any chance of success, should be deprived of such a cheap and ready means of transit by any ill judged, though doubtless well meaning, action of its representatives. Those who know the conditions upon which an undertaking of this kind, absorbing a large capital, and incurring a continuous heavy expenditure in working and maintaining the lines and rolling stock in a thorough state of efficiency, must bo carried on, and how the same can be made sufficiently remunerative to ensure its continuance, are well aware that it is only by the attractions of cheapness, safety, comfort, and punctuality, by inducing large numbers to use the care, that this object can by any possibility be achieved. Whore the margin of profit must necessarily be small, it may quickly and easily be converted into a deficit, by the imposition of restrictions apparently of small moment, which by their continuous and vexatious operation, are likely to be as effective in causing the abandonment of the enterprise as the issue of a peremptory order authorising the stoppage of the oars and removal of tho rails. So universally have these views been recognised wherever tramways have been introduced, that with the exception of suoh general provisions as are already secured by Acts and deeds, there is no single instance where such regulations and restrictions as are now proposed to be enforced have been found necessary or desirable. Their introduction would not he possible here but for the undertaking being in its initial stage, and therefore tho publio not yet fully realising the value and importance of the interests involved and probably endangered. Without desiring to enter into a controversy with Councillor Oherrill, I must distinctly assert that a by-law was not necessary to legalise standing places for the cars and regulate tho use of same, as is necessary for other licensed vehicles requiring to remain for indefinite periods in one place ; because, first, the tramway oars do not require standing places, os they are only stationary for a very brief period to accommodate the public by keeping tho time-tables; and second, the starting place and terminus of tho present and future extensions having been fixed by deed in Cathedral square, no further power is needed to legalise tho same. The action of the Council in this respect can bo explained by the fact that the deed of concession and plans empower tho Tramway Company to curve the lino in Cathedral square towards the footpath on tho western side of tho road, which, if carried out, would obviate the present inconvenience of passengers being put down in tho middle of a street, not always clean, and by which they are often exposed to danger from passing vehicles. But the Council, having placed a cab-stand upon the site indicated instead of remedying the mistake, purpose, by a by-law, to perpetuate the present inconvenience. A by-law was not required for tho purpose of inserting a clause to enable the Council to commute the fees payable under it —power of commutation being provided for in tho Tramways Act, by which the payment of an annual sum could be arranged for in lieu of fees. Tho clauses in the proposed by-law, fixing the number to be carried in each car and the number of cars to be allowed in the square at tho same time, are sure to operate to tho inconvenience and disgust of travellers, and by curtailing the facilities of travelling will inevitably re-act in tho manner indicated in the former part of this letter. For this reason, as a large shareholder and one of tho directors, I shall urge the Board to postpone sine die the consideration of further extensions of tho Jines in view of the proposed by-law. Yours, &c., WILLIAM Pit ATT. THE PREMIER ON THE LICENSING BILL. TO THE EDITOB OP THE PRESS. Sib, —In the speech delivered at Leeston on Thursday night, the Premier spoke of the Licensing Bill as one of the important measures to be reintroduced next session. The Bill as reintroduced will be almost identical with the Bill of 1880, except probably a difference in the matter of Club licenses. This change has no doubt been evoked by certain proceedings in connection with a Working Men’s Club in Wellington, and by reports

which have reached <SWernment of misconduct in the management of such institutions elsewhere. The remedy proposed by Government is to bring all places died for the sale of intoxicating drinks under police supervision, whether they be olubs for aristocrats, merchants or mechanics. The remedy is one which can hardly bo objected to by the members o-f such clubs, for surely they never do anything in such institutions which could possibly be objected to by the most zealous police officer. Besides any body of men who did object can find an easy way to escape police supervision, viz., by giving up the sale of liquor. The Premier, however, farseeing man and skilled legislator though he be does not see the right of the compensation question. He evidently admits the principle of applying the local option vote to existing as well to now publiohouse licenses ; his only trouble appears to be that he does not see his way to get the m mey which would be required for compensation. Now, supposing for the sake of argument, that local option applied to existing licenses becomes law next session, would any of the “ respectable well conducted homos” in Christchurch lose their licenses ? I think not, and if one of our badly conducted houses, and no one who knows this city of ours can deny their existence, if one of our badly conducted bouses I say is voted out of existence, would not the public be doing simply what the licensing commissioners have the power to do at preaent without any compensation ? There are houses'that no decent woman and few docent men care to walk past even—in this case what is the amount of compensation due ? I fancy I hear men from all parts of the country who have been half poisoned, wholly robbed, and generally ill-treated in such places unite in one answer 11 Nothing !” These are the oases that would be rooted out, and the pn-blio would be well rid of them. Ido not think the Government need fear to give the people the power to apply local option to existing as well as to new licenses. Very little will be the demand on the public puree, and it must bo remembered that as a matter of economy merely it would pay Christchurch to clear out fifty public-houses at an average of £3OOO each, and bo recouped in two years, with interest. If compensation be admitted, however, then what about the contra account ? Who is goirg, in the first instance, to compensate the people who object to a public-house being planted next door to them ? At the next Licensing Court there are four new licenses to be applied for. One at Lincoln, which has been opposed before at an expense to the neighbors, and will be again opposed at a similar cost; one at Sydenham, has been opposed before, and now will be again at an expense to the neighbors; two in the north-east district of Christchurch, which are meeting with considerable opposition from the neighboring residents. One of these was opposed only a short while since, and now the same unpleasant trouble and expenses has to be incurred. One resident in this district considers that if tho license is granted it will be a direct loss to him of £2OO at least. Who, I ask, is going to provide compensation in these oases ? I trust the Premier and his coadjutors will consider this matter very carefully, for the Licensing Bill to be passed now should be one which will stand as law for some years, so that there will not be some forty-nine Acts and Ordinances, all bearing, more or less, on this subject, as is the case at present. S. A. E. A.