Evening Post. SATURDAY, JUNE 11, 1898.

Evening Post, Volume LV, Issue 137, 11 June 1898, Page 4

Evening Post. SATURDAY, JUNE 11, 1898.

TRAMWAY CONCESSIONS. A stbongeb argument could hardly bo ouiul in support of the munieipalisation of our tramways than is contained in the proposals of three several syndicates to take over the Auckland roads, as published in our issue of last evening. Mr. W. Gentry Uitigham, who represents, we believe, a powerful combination o£ British .capitalists, offers to the Auckland Council, in return for possession of the roads of the city for tlffrty years, a rent of £400 per annum, 5 per cent, on profits up to £5000, and 10 per cent, on any profit in excess of that sum. For this consideration he would be prepared to instal an electric tram service, which the Council would have the ri^ht to lake over at the end of the lease, or any subppquenjj time, at a valuation. The second proposal, that of Mr. Max Epstein, was for a rental of £300 for thirty years, with riijlit to the Council of resumption at the end of that time, or if period of lease extended 10 per cent, of value to be written off at the cud ol! every succeeding live years.

Under this arrangement, Mr. Epstein points out that the Municipality would bo again in possession of its roads, phis the electric tramway, without payment at the end of eiyMy years. A mining company promoter in boom time could hardly propose to stand on softer " velvet" than does Mr. Epstein — or is it that he is a humorist ? Either way his offer docs- not appear to us to be deserving of serious discussion.' Of tho third scheme put forward— that of Mr. Huntwhile it seems unworthy of consideration in tho complete absence of any particulars as to distribution of profits, it is impossible to offer any definite opinion. As, however, the proposal of Mr. Bingham seems to be the most advantageous to the ratepayers of the Northern city, and as it is one that should, in our opinion, be promptly refused, our remarks will for the present be confined to the merits of that offer as an alternative to the ' muuicipalisation of this source of revenue. And it may be here said that we only comment upon this question because the position of Auckland in relation to it is analogous to that of Wellington, and it will therefore be understood that our immediate concern is with the welfare of this city. Dealing, then, with Mr. Bingham's proposal, 5 per cent, is to be paid to 'the Council from out the profits of the undertaking so long as they do not exceed £5000 per annum, and 10 per cent, on any profit in excess of that sum.' It will be admitted that the net profits of the tramway system of either Auckland or, Wellington are more thau likely io : 'average £5000 per annum for thirty years. Now, £5000 capitalised at 5 per ceut. spells £100,000. Half that sum should be more than sufficient for Mr. Bingham's enterprise, and at this figure the concession would bo worth 10 per ceut. per annum on the subscribed capital. In return fqr this "good thing" to the ( promoters the ratepayers would receive as their share of the profits made out of the municipal estate the beggarly sum of £250 per annum, 'plus a fixed rental of £400— in all £030, as against £4750 to the syndicate. Could there be a stronger argument in favour of municipalisation thau is contained in the overtures of Mr. Bingham as a promoter? Besides, it must be remembered that municipal control and ownership will mean, with increasing traffic (as we have repeatedly shown in the cases of the progressive cities of the Old Country), cheapened fares, better wages for employe's, and shortened hours of labour. The converse would mean to the syndicate added profits drawn from the pockets of the people. To us at is inconceivable that iv the municipal life of this country there is no public man strong enough and true enough to initiate a policy of the municipalisation of the" public' services, and of the street traffic of 6ur cities first of all. We admit that the apathy 'of the burgesses aud the almost entire lack of public spirit on the part of the citizens is very discouraging, for we ourselves sometimes despair of such reforms; but surely there must be somewhere in our midst men who have the capacity and the will to arouse the public to a line of action that will save them from the syndicutor and preserve to them the immense potentialities of profit that lie latent in their own estate. In the case of this city, the ratepayers have been given to understand that the Corporation' cannot resume possession of the tramways at the expiration of the present lease. The. reason has not beeu made plain. In fact, there is a cloud of obscurity over the whole situation that for the credit of the Council should be quickly dissipated. The city should know the price it must be required to pay to regain possession of its streets, even if it be necessary to have its^ liability determined in the Supreme Court of the country. That be-ins; done, it will be for the ratepayers to di.'Cido whether the city can pay the price. If the answer be in the affirmative we can see no reason why a municipal electric service should not be undertaken, and the necessary capital raised upon debentures s-ecured first the tramway lines, with a guarantee by way of collateral security from the Municipality itself. This should be a sufficiently gilt-edged security to ensure the raising of the necest-ary capital at, say, 3i per cent. Estimates of cost, and revenue could be approximated with sufficient exactness to rpinove all element of speculation, and -we cannot but belie,ve that if these were taken out in an authoritative aud businesslike way under direction of the Council half the supposed difficulties in the way of the project would iit onco disappear. If, however, the Council and the ratepayers decline to incur the risk, and elect to deal with a syndicate, they cannot too quickly proceed to consider the terms of the concessions the}' are prepared to offer to promote the enterprise. It is ,worse than bad business to let things drift until the city is at the mercy of those who aro now in possession, or another symdicate can practically dictate its own terms. It' a syndicate is to control our train service, .then it should be on sharing terms as to profits, the Municipality taking so much of the risk as it could afford. For instance, if it could be satisfied that the* enterprise would from its initiation pay three per cent, on Sthe capital invested by the, syndicate, it might guarantee that return, and in lieu of its concessions to the company divide all net profits thereafter. This* at least would mean an increasing revenue to the city, and a corresponding lowering of the rates, while it. would induce pjenty of competition i'jjr the investment. We hope to see, and shall continue to urge, complete and entire municipalisalioii of our tramway service; but if the ttyndicator is inevitable we shall do our part to compel him to pay to the city a fair proportion of his annual profits.