THE TRAMWAYS ACT.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13908, 6 December 1910, Page 8

THE TRAMWAYS ACT.

EVIDENCE

CRITICISED

THE ACT CONDEMNED

The new Tramways Act was the subject of some discussion at the meeting of the Christchurch Tramway Board yesterday afternoon. The Hon. H. F. Wigram, M.L.C., wrote forwarding a copy of the Act as passed by Parliament. Mr Recce moved that the Boaru should pass a very hearty vote of thanks to the Hon. Mr Wigram, who seemed to be the only member of either House who supported the Board's view of the Bill.

This was seconded by Mr Staples

Mr J. A. Flesher remarked that some of the evidence given before the Parliamentary Committee showed a strong case why the Board should consider the relations between itself and certain emplovces who gave evidence before tlie Committee. One of these witnesses made the statement that the Board put revenue first and the safety of the public afterwards.'' Anyone who knew anything about tho working of the Christchurch system would know that such a statement was totally unwarranted, ar.d should not have been made. If the Board had employees who were prepared to give such evidence before the Committee, it only showed that the Board was employing men who were totally devoid of a*ry sense of responsibility, and were not fit to be entrusted with any responsibility in the service. When "representatives of the Union went before the Committee and made such statements as the one quoted, the matter deserved the Board's serious consideration. The whole of the evidence given before the Committee should be reviewed by the Staff Committee, which would recommend what should be done.

The general manager (Mr F. Thompson) said that tho statement was not made by tho man in his evidence-in-chief, but was drawn from him by the Minister for Public Works. The Hon. Mr McKenzie put the words into his mouth, and he assented.

Mr G. T. Booth said that he was glad Mr Thompson had made his statement, otherwise the Board might have been led into condemning the man unjustly. They had all some experience of Parliamentary Committees, and they knew how easy it was to be led into saying something they would not have said if given time for consideration.

Mr Flesher said that some of the evidence was not at all satisfactory from the Board's point of view. The subject then dropped, and the motion heartily thanking the Hon. Mr Wigram was passed. At a later stage, the Bill was again referred to. Mr G. T. Booth said that he had not had the opportunity of studying the Bill as it had finally passed, out he believed that the original proposals had been modified to some extent. There wero just two things he wished the Board to take notice of in the meantime. The vote of thanks to the Hon. H. F. Wigram, proposed by Mr Recce, had been well deserved, but Mr Recce had neglected to do a similar duty towards a member of the .House who had made a persistent, valiant, and partly successful fight in tlie interests of municipal bodies —he referred to Mr T. M. Wilford. Certain members whose support the Board , might reasonably have expected bad been conspicuously silent, but. Mr Wilford had been persistent in his endeavours to have the Bill amended to preserve the rights of local bodies. It would only be for the Board to record its appreciation of his action. The other point was that when the Bill was before the Upper Houso one member said something to the effect that the Bill was unnecessary and uncalled for. Tho Attorney-General interjected that the motormen wanted it. (Mr Flesher: 4sked for it.) That might be a good and sufficient reason in the eyes of motormen for passing the Bill, Mr Booth continued, but he did not think it.was creditable that it was a good and sufficient reason in the eyes of a responsible member of a democratic Government. He did not tliink it too much to say that it was nothing less than a degrading perversion of the theory and practice of democracy. The Chairman: That is hardly Parliamentary language, Mr Booth. (Laughter.) Mr Booth said that he was willing to take the risk if the words were libellous. (Laughter.) It was degrading that the rights of the public, expressed by their votes at the elections, should be disregarded, and superseded by the desire of a small handful of their employees. The Board should place their resentment on record in some way. He moved: —"That the Board record its appreciation of Mr Wilford's efforts to preserve the rights of municipalities in regard to tramway matters."

Mr Staules seconded the motion

The Chairman (Mr H. Pearce) said that there was a good deal of difference between the Bill as' originally printed and as finally passed. The sting had been taken out of several clauses to which the Board had objected. He agreed with Mr Booth, however, that not one clause of the Bill had been required. The ratepayers of Christchurch bad shown that they were quite satisfied with the way in which the Board had served tho public, and the Board Had always done what it could in connection with traffic requirements. The Board had decfded that th© passengers must pay for the cars, and that the ratepayers of Christcnurch must not be called upon to run th© system with tkeir rates. Tlie Board gave their employees every possible convenience; he did not think there was any firm or corporation whose employees received more consideration or enjoyed more privileges. Taking th© employees as a whole, they were very good "men. In a large body of men there were always exceptions. In the past these exceptions hiid been weeded out, and that would be done again. Certiin remarks had been made .by different witnesses before the Committee, to which he did not wisfi to refer, save to say that the statement that vhe Board had placed revenue before consideration to their employees, and safety to the public was untrue The motion thanking Mr Wilford was carried unanimously.