UNDER FIRE

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 350, 10 May 1928, Page 1

UNDER FIRE

Tram Chairman in Box

DIVERTED LOANS QUESTION

WHEN loan proposals are submitted to ratepayers they are put in general terms, and the council may submit, at the time, its ideas in raising the loan; but if subsequent events render a change of policy necessary, then it is the council’s duty so to change its policy, not obstinately to adhere to its original plans to the detriment of the ratepayers.”

This is the considered opinion of Or. j. A. C. Allum, tramways chairman, and was given by him to the Transport Commission this morning, during his cross-examination by Mr. V. R. Meredith, counsel for suburban bodies. In addition witness said he thought this was generally accepted by all local bodies. Some comment was made on a report, supposed to have been made to the council a couple of years ago by Mr. Thompson, ex-councillor, at one time chairman of the Tram-way Committee. Mr. Allum said this report was sent to councillors confidentially. It had never been released for publication, and portions of the report had never been dealt with. Witness said the committee had desired to set up reserve accounts, but pressing needs to spend all money available on urgent works, and the necessity of handing over the actual rash to the sinking fund commissioners, had prevented this activity. SINKING FUNDS Talking of sinking funds, the chairman asked whether any municipality had ever cleared off its debts by this means. Witness said Glasgow had so cleared its tramway undertaking. Considerably over £300,000 was held now on the original loans. These would be wiped out in about 12 years, but there would then be further loan obligations. Referring to the diversion of loan money from tram extensions, witness said that, in his opinion, this was the only action open. EFFICIENT AND ABLE ‘T gather that you are satisfied with the efficiency of the system?” said Mr. Meredith, opening the cross-examina-tion. Witness: Yes. And with the management?—Yes. And with the ability of the Tramway Committee ?—Y es. And with the chairman? —I «innot answer that question. Witness admitted that he wm also chairman of the Water Committee, arid water had also been subject to a Royal Commission. The commission left things as they were?—Yes. I think you spent most of the last summer praying with Mr. Bush to save the situation? —That was not necessary. Witness said a continuous shortage of trams had been suffered. Mr. Ford had asked for more cars as soon as he arrived. Another 20 cars were required now. Why did you ask for 50 in the £500.000 loan? —Because we were proposing tram extensions. We did not propose to put all the cars on the road immediately. MORE BUSES THAN WANTED Witness said the tramway manager asked for 50 new buses, but the committee cut this out. Afterwards they got more buses than they wanted. He denied that the council’s power to control traffic was used as a means to deal in an indirect way with tram competitors. On the value of this examination being questioned, Mr. Meredith said it was portion of an allegation that the city was not the proper body to have sole control of traffic and all transport facilities. TRACK WORK Mr. Meredith opened this morning by referring to the amount spent on permanent way, £28,915 in 1920-21, £65,082 in 1921-22, £79,404 in 1922--3, and £88,452 in 1923-24. Witness said Sir James Gunson, as Mayor, brought down the estimates during his term, and the Tramway Committee did not have an opportunity to discuss them before they We nt to the council. He did not remember any formal objection to ' this procedure. His opinion was that the procedure did not Bive the best results, but the council bad the opportunity of fully discussuig the details, and did so.

Witness said he held that some °f the expenditure was on capital account, and should not have been taken from revenue, but the council as a whole was of another opinion. knew that at all times a considerable expenditure was still required on the tracks. This was largely flue to increased traffic and changes re Afl* re< l by putting down permanent roads. Charging reconstruction of xft to ca PHal started in 1925-26. Alter that the figures fell again, and pr*i ition there was the £IOO,OOO unP’oyment loan. The expenditure £61,698 in 1924-25. £32,018 in •«tv’ and £17.996 in 1926-27. f * know the necessity for renewal . nds ;” remarked witness, but the cirumstances prevented one in Auckland s o far. GAUNT STREET AGAIN uw itri w SS said *1 was proposed to comS * ®. the approaches to Gaunt Street to ° Ut additional 10 per cent. In**, rai * ed on the £280,000 tramway owi ’ PJPcb of which was diverted t - g to change of policy forced on council. v^ ork was included in the tur™ ’j, loan - which the ratepayers .. v a down?” asked Mr. Meredith. ••m B, was the repiythp^, 0 ? you P r °Pose to get back on on b « settin|? the £28,000 additional COm ® “rst loan, and doing the work.” commented Mr. Meredith. h v tK n specific purposes, announced Th* 'r 6 ayor - Sir James Gunson. at v OU p <^ Wn . Mall. He did not ask for assistance on the platform?— t>y*himM < lf edith: He did ,nost thinss dei ? ied that Mount Eden's traoUo ■J’° ma * nta in the road between ine as used as a reason for avoidtram« ant * er t a king of the city to put road xx Mount Eden concreted the lie admitted that the city had

Siven this undertaking, and In more definite terms than those of an "honourable understanding.” “Was it correct for you to ‘welch’ on your undertaking with Mount Eden?” asked Mr. Meredith. Mr. J. Stanton, City Solicitor: There is no need to be unnecessarily offensive. The chairman, Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M.: You will never get any witness to adopt that expression. Witness said they asked Mount Eden to do something to help to meet the changed conditions, and as Mount Eden refused they would not do the work, even if Mount Eden spent money putting down concrete . DIVERSION JUSTIFIED Referring to the £280,000 loan again, witness said the money was voted for transport purposes, and the council, m Its judgment, changed its poll y, as it was entitled to. What makes you say that?—The council was elected to act wisely on behalf of the people, and did so. Then so long as the loan was in connection with the tramway undertaking you have a right to spend it as you like in that department?-—Pro-vided it is wisely spent. Did you dare to go to the ratepayers and ask for a loan to fight the competition ?—I had the responsibility, and you had not. We acted wisely. Mr. Meredith: You broke your responsibility. Mr. Allum: We did not. We spent the money properly, under the circumstances. Mr. Meredith: You had the money in your pocket, and that apparently was good enough. Continuing, witness said the council got £ 54,000 from the ratepayers in 1923 for Gaunt Street depot, part of the £70,000 loan. There was nothing mentioned in the £280,000 loan proposals about Gaunt Street.