TRAMWAY MATTERS.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14760, 2 September 1913, Page 3

TRAMWAY MATTERS.

PROPOSED REGULATIONS. DISCUSSION AT CITY COUNCIL. The By-laws Committee, in a report presented to the City Council last night, stated that the letter from the Tramway Board in reference to the proposed tramway regulations and the request for cooperation in the endeavour to obtain the repeal of those clauses in the Tramways Amendment Act, 1910, which took from local bodies the full control of tramways in their respective districts, had again been considered, and the committee recommended tho Council to protest against tho Government retaining tho powers conferred by Sections 5 and 11 of tho Tramways Amendment Act. 1910, in eases where'tramways were owned and managed by elective local bodies. The committee was of opinion that the? Government should retain the present measure of control over tramways owned and managed by other than elective local bodies. CHRISTCHURCH TRAMWAY BILL. Tho committee, also reported that it had considered the question of the Council opposing the following part of subsection (a) of Section Gof the above Bill:—"Or of any organised body of employees of tho Board, such office or position carrying with it any profit, salary, or remuneration,'.' and had to report that it had no recommendation to make, being of opinion that as it involved a question of principle, the matter should be decided by the Council. Cr. McCombs moved that the Council disapprove of the proposed amendment. The proposal, he said, was a most drastic one, and was a restriction placed on tho democracy of Christchurch. Hβ objected to the Government interfering with the electors in their choice of a Tramway Board. The clause was conceived in a petty spirit, and was aimed at one man only. The Tramway Board should not interfere with anybody receiving part of the money paid to the tramway employees as wages, for when so paid the money was no longer tramway money. Cr. Sorensen moved that tho matter should be referred back to the committee. A conference had been _ arranged between the By-laws Committee and a committee from - the Tramway Board. Cr. Hunter said the proposed clause would hit an officer of any, tramway union, and was a most unjust thing. He protested against any delay* The Council should express its opinion that night. Cp. Otley said he could not see the difference between the proposal and the position relating to_ directors or managers of companies in the matter of disqualification for service on public boards. Cr. HcCullough supported the motion on the ground that he was standing for tho principle of liberty. The proposal was a remnant of the I>ark Ages, when a working man had no rights. The public should not bo dictated to in the matter of election of their representatives to the Tramway Board. The parallel drawn by Cr. Otley was not a true one, for it was public money being Bpent, whereas in the present case it was not tie Board's money going to the man proposed to be disqualified. Cr. McCombs's motion was put and lost by 8 to 7. Cr. Sorensen's proposition to refer the matter back to the committee was carried. '