ST. MARTINS TRAMS.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 186, 11 September 1914, Page 3

ST. MARTINS TRAMS.

BILL BEFORE THE HOUSE. DOES IT MEAN REPUDIATION? [From our own Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, September 10./ ' On behalf of the Local Bills Committee, Mr G. V. Pearee (chairman-)-.- v ported that tKe committee ■ had coiu sidered the Christchurcli Tramways District Amendment Bill, and, after calling evidence for and against,, lmd decided to recommend that the JBi|l be not allowed to proceed. Mr T. H. Davey (Christchurcli East) moved that the report be referred back to the committee. Certain steps were being taken which would result in the settlement 'of any difficulties tliit might occui. Mr G. W. Russell said that the principle of the Bill was bad in that it proposed repudiation. Certain districts had gOne in for tramways on condition that rates should be payable by them. Now that they had entered into the obligation they wished to repudiate their liability. If this kiad of thing were allowed "there woulfl l)e no end to' it. Mr J. McCombs (Lyttelton) said that the people of districts such as St. Martins had to pay certain rates for their;' trams such as were not imposed on suburban districts in any other town in New Zealand. Mr Russell's statements were grossly unfair. The people of St. Martins did not wish to repudiate any of obligations; they would pay every penny of their liabilities, and all they desired was a readjustment of the system of payment. If the Bill were referred back to the committee, the differences between the parties concerned would very probably be settled. Mr G. Witty (Ricearton) said the people of St. Martins were asking only for postponement of the payment of moneys due by them. Seeing that Parliament had passed emergency legislation allowing private persons' to postpone payment of their liabilities, the House should give every consideration to the proposal to allow communities to do the same. As a matter of fact the Tramway Board was now seeking to enforce strict compliance with a contract which it attempted itself to break last year. He thought the committee should reconsider its decision. The Hon. D. Buddo (Kaiapoi) said •he did not object to the Bill being referred back in the present particular case, but he would not like to see provisions of the Bill established, as a principle. Mr Pearee said it would b«j useless to send the Bill in its present form back to the committee, as it would simply be thrown out again. The Bill was bad in principle, and- the committee would not agree to it. The Bill proposed repudiation and would allow a syndicate to swindle genuine settlers in the St. Martins district. However, he would be glad to hear that the Tramways Board and the St. Martins people could come to an amicable, agreement. Mr Davey said that he would not favour a Bill which involved the principle of repudiation. The motion to refer the Bill back to the committee was carried on the voices.