TRAMWAY GAUGE.

Press, Issue 11564, 22 April 1903, Page 9

TRAMWAY GAUGE.

*<> THE SDITOB OF THE PBESS. Sir,— l have known Mr George Scott for Bitty years. I remember when be was utdtkj&lly * journeyman. By skill, in* .s»try, and beaourabi* d*au»f be baa rises te ess sf tbe meat prsaninsnt industrial : position* in this colony. His judgment in fegajaess must hay* equalled th« other «c----ptUtnt qualities named to have brought him jaeh success. In tlie light of the above facts, Mr Scott's position on the question ef the gauge of the proposed electric tramir»ys is inexplicable. The public will not. appreciate his appeal to their judgment. They will resent it; or, at least, regard it w an evidence that the Tramway Board Jacks decision, or perhaps knowledge and decision both. The public, to which Mr Scott -appeals, knows nothing of the point jn dispute. Tho jury to which Mr Scott appeals is densely ignorant. It has no evidence. It lma no experience to guide it The public rightly expects the Board. by a majority vote, after the moat careful examination of it# own expert engineer's advice, to Rettle the question of gauge. There would be a trifle more sense in a proposal to make Mr Scott run tbe details tif bis big biwinos upon v verdict given by the six youngest apprentices in his foundry than to ask th« man in the street to settle a question which must be determined, if it ■is determiived in the real interests of tlie city, by the practice, the increasing prac-tk-e throughout the world, which one may fairly assume is baaed upon what is in actual working found to be- best. Mr Scott has erred in appealing to the public to take a hand «n thirs matter. He is not v pigheaded man, although be is a desperate fighter when he thinks be is right. I urge him to recognise that he cannot find a better tribunal to settle the point in question than the Board of which he is a member, and its engineer.

There may be other matters of policy which the puhlio will thank Mr Scott for forcing their attention to. I don't suggest the Board should exercise unchecked control. The question of how the concession bolder* over existing trams are to be treated is a question involving principles of equality and justice. Mr Scott may appeal to his jury of the public on such a jnmtter, and I hope he will if it is necessary. But tbe gauge is a technical question, and we have to abide by the Board's decision. May I suggest, in conclusion, that the gauge question involves the two very important factors of "speed and comfoit." Compared with these a few thousand pounds difference in the original cost is quite immateriaL X personally don't think the amount of roadway required by the wider gaage is very material. The roads belong to the people, who will own the trams; it would be different if private owners were asking to use a slice of tlie public road. Farther, not one road in a hundred is affected by tbe tram system, and other vobicukr traffic can use tbe 99 other roads at Rs sweet will il it won't walk on the same road as the tram. I have ridden in electric cars on narrow «>nd on standard gauge tracks, and for speed and comfort you cannot compare the narrow with the gauge proposed by Mr Chamberlain. But the Tramway Board must decide, and I am sure Mr Scott's business shrewdness will confess after reviewing the position that we, the general public, have not got access to the evidence requisite to enable us to give a worthy verdict on the point he has asked us to consider.—Yours, etc., PROGRESS. Christchurch, April 20th, 1903.