The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1912. THE SUNDAY TRAMS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 59, 8 March 1912, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1912. THE SUNDAY TRAMS.

Pee thm that ttotm iMiinwn fW tk» that moe4» rmiataw, IW <A* f*A»re m tho diMtamo** Ami t*» good thmt w o«m* *l

The proposal to run the tram service continuously throughout Sunday has naturally evoked a considerable amount of opposition, more especially from the clergy sad churchgoers; and the deputations which waited on the City Council last night to protest against * the change were justified in assuming that they had a strong body of public opinion behind them. We need hardly add that our own sympathies are entirely with those who object to the encroachment of the tram system upon the hours of church service. Nine yeans ago, when the agitation in favour of Sunday trams was first started, we spoke strongly against it, pointing out the danger of introducing the principle of Sunday labour, and warning the workers more particularly that a Sunday tram service would probably lead in time to a seveaday worichag week,, that it would necessarily entail hardships on the wageearners, and would ultimately reduce their already limited opportunities for recreation and rest. The Sunday tram scheme was adopted by a poll of ratepayers, bat only by a majority of 22 votes, in a total poll of over 8000 out of 12,000 votes on the municipal register. And we have no hesitation in asserting that even this hard won victory was secured solely through the pledge formally given by the Tramway Company that it would not run the tramcars during church hours. Under the circumstances, therefore, we hope that the City Council sad the citizen* of Auckland will definitely refuse to make the further oonceasioas that tlje Tramway Company now requires.

As to the general arguments against the Sunday tram, they seem to us to stand just where they stood some years ago. We believe that from every point, of view the city would have been betterwithout it; but now that our people have become accustomed to the system it is hardly to be expected that they will voluntarily offer to give it up. But the running of the trams during church hours is entirely a different matter. The amount of inconvenience to which churehgoers would be subjected, and the constant interruption of Divine worship in every one of the 40 churches that stand along our tram lines are certainly- powerful arguments against any change. We emphatically endorse the views put forward by the Rev. I. JoUy, Archdeacon Calder, and other clerical speakers last night, and we can see no reason for any hesitation on the part of the City Council to act accordingly. For it can hardly be contended that the City Council has no control over the Tramway Company in regard to its time-table. On this point we are happily in a position to quote two authoritative opinions, which ought to be accepted as conclusive. The first is that of Mr. T. Cotter, who, as city solicitor, was asked, after the poll had been taken to give an opinion on- this question. Mr Cottei- replied that esen if Mr Hansen had not, in his letter to. the City Council, definitely promised that the trams would stop during church .se*viqe, "the Council would have the right to prohibit the running of the trams dazing oburch. hours." The second! opinion we cite U that of Mr C J. Parr, i

who wa» then a member of th* City-Coun-cil, mad w interviewed by us the day after the poll. In our issue of October lst, 1903, Mr Parr is quoted u fellows: "The Council has power to regulate the timet at which the trams shall run on Sundays." Asked by our interviewer — "Is that power sufficient, in view of Mr Hansen's written promise, to prohibit the running of the cars during church hours, if this should be attempted," Mr Parr replied—"l do not think that the Council would in any case, whether Mr Hansen had given an undertaking or not, permit a time table under whicn trams would run during ehureh hours." From these quotations it is quite clear that in 1903 Mr Cotter and Mr Parr had no doubt about the City Council's power to regulate the Tramway Company's time table, and we cannot imagine that anything has happened to alter their views since.

The only possible inference is that the City Council need net hesitate or waste time by referring this question again to its solicitor. It is able to refuse permission to alter the present arrangement, and in our opinion it should decline at once. We are, of course, aware that Mr. Hansen's undertaking, now nearly nine years old, has no legal binding force upon the Company. But we venture to think that the Company, under the circumstances, would be very ill-advised to challenge public opinion on this qunstion again. The right to run trams on Sunday was granted by a

very small majority of the ratepayer*, and it is a matter of common knowledge that the- Company wouVl have had no chance of success if it had not given a promise in clear and emphatic terms to the City Council and the people of Auckland not to run the trams during church hours. In the advertisements that the Tramway Company published in the local Press, and the circular it issued before the poll, the case for the

Sunday tram is set forth under the headjng-^"Facts and Reasons why every Voter should record hia or her vote in favour of the electric cars running on Sunday (exclusive of Church hours)."' And among the "Facta and Reasons' appears the following—"Because the electrie oars will not run during Church hours and will increase the Church attendance, as they have done everywhere else in the world." We must leave it to the Company to reconcile its present views with this interesting circular. But now that we have had a prolonged experience of Sunday trams, we can appreciate the extent to which public worship will be interfered with* ajid the peace and dignity that ought to characterise it will be disturbed, if these cars—which have been described by competent observers as the aoisiest in the whole world —go roaring and crashing by few minute* throughout church-time. In nearly all other colonial cities the practice is to atop the trams during Church hours, and we can see no reason why an exception should be made in the case of Auckland, where most of the Churches are wooden buildings peculiarly susceptible to noise. If the ratepayers were asked to express an opinion on this proposal we would have no fear of the result. But as the City Council possesses the power to decide the matter on its own authority we hope that it will promptly reject the Tramway Com pa.Q_v'a indefensible proposal in clear and unmistakable terms.