ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS AND MR BINGHAM.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIX, Issue 149, 27 June 1898, Page 8

ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS AND MR BINGHAM.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Our attention has been drawn to ill' Gingham's letter in your issue of Friday last, in which that gentleman explains his reasons for asking for two years before entering into a final contract.

Two years are necessary, he says, to place him in a position "to negotiate with (he pre&ent owners of the tramways because the Bank of New £ea» lantl have for the next twelve months or so parted with their right to deal with the concern, in favour of one of his opponents. Up to the present time there have been, apart from Messrs Chambers and Son's, three or four different proposals before the Council. All these proposals have had features in common and have only varied in details. The principles upon which the favoured arrangement proceeds were all present in Mr Hunt's first proposals and to him belongs the credit of first placing the matter in a tangible form before the Council. His latest proposal we will not refer to further than to say that it is quite possible it was the most beneficial to the city of all.

However, it has been dismissed from consideration..

Mr Hunt and his successors, with 'the exception of Mr Bingham, no matter what their divergencies were, have been at one in this at all events that they had the decency, or shall we say the honesty, to enter into arangernents with the present owners of the tramway before they began negotiations with the City Council. The present tramway concession has still nearly seven years to run, and unless arrangements satisfactory to the present owners are made there can be no improvement in the present system. ]t is clear then that anj^one proposing to deal with the tramways had to enter into arrangements with two parties—firstly, the present lessees, and next, the local authorities. Mr Hunt and Mr Epstein, before attempting to negotiate with the Council, applied to the Bank of New Zealand, as owners of the present concession, to ascertain the terms upon which they would assign or surrender it. Having done this and made their arrangements accordingly, they in due course opened negotiations with the Council with the view of getting a new concession for the purpose of converting the present system into one of electric traction.

While these proposals were before the Council Mr Bingham, without having ma.de any arrangements at all, launches boldly into negotiations with the Council. He- writes of unfair competition and the honourable traditions to which they are wont to appeal at Home, evidently attempting1 a back-handel hit at our clients; Messrs ,T. Chambers and Son. 'People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Is itconsidered honourable 'at Home' for a man to attempt to obtain, over the heads of the owners in possession, the renewal of a lease? That may be honourable dealing as understood by company promoters of twelve thousand miles away. But Mr Bingharn, when his scheme comes, as come it will, if the Council proceeds with it, before the ratepayers of Auckland, will find out what they think of that kind of thing. It is grotesque indeed to read from him about unfair competition and honourable dealing. There is an old proverb about notputting the cart before the horse, but Mr Bingham apparently derides it. Having got his cart, as he thinks, he now wants Mr Epstein's horse; but will he get it? He wants two years in which to compel the latter to sell out to him; but why should the people of Auckland have to Wait two years for Mr Bingham? For these two years are they to go on as at present, paying threepence for what they might- have for about a penny? Why should every single person in Auckland who uses or would use the tramways be mulcted in an extra shilling to two shillings a week for two years to please Mr Bingham?

Whatever Mr Epstein's arrangement with the Bank is one can readily understand him saying:—Well, whatever happens I will not surrender my rights to Mr Bingham; he nt any rate, shall not have the tramways even if the horse car has to run for seven years to come.' It is nil very well for

Mr Bingham to say:—'Oh, 1 ■«, J, ing to relieve Mr Epstein of 3hff^J * and will undertake that h e S h a ?f' oll tarn no loss.' Under what £J> ■ honour does he claim the right tev° f of Mr E^Sfe In his letter Mr Bingham' sav« W Bank of New Zealand soltuß^ ways to his opponent. This jfiTa ?" way of putting it. The Bank hi made its contract with Jfr^R before Mr Bingha. m appear dfe scene at all. Mr Epstein had a?i* time no opponent. * thn t There is a deadlock at present if' saxd that it would not be f air to li * to Messrs Chambers and Son's > posals because Mr Bingham's n^' sals were already before the cffif ■ But what about Mr Bingham's S f 3l fSi re nnot Mr Epstein's profit before the Council before Mr MS arrived; yet Mr Bingham consifc hmise f free to enter the field? ffl should not a third party be as £ as he to make 'proposals? If it wiis,! honourable thing for Mr BinghaioJ interfere with Mr Epstein, whyl! honourable for Messrs Chambers 2' Son to intervene now? The letteral spirit of the law regarding the p^g ST/^""1^ 1 cor P°rati°ns providS that there shall be public competition before the Council enters into a con tract or that the contract shall-w submitted to the ratepayers form approval. If through Mr BinghiJ, blandishments the Council Mm perceive what is best for the city the common sense of the people wi'J) a J the public will insist u?on tVw scheme being adopted. Independent!? of Mr Bingham's inability to carrr out his scheme until he gets Mr % stein's horse his is not the best.-ff« are., etc.. v ' RUSSELL & CAMPBELL