THE TRAMWAY BOARD.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18399, 4 June 1925, Page 9

THE TRAMWAY BOARD.

10 THK &DITOB 0? "THE IHBSS." Sir, —I <liti not expect that "'The Press" would hav© published a business letter in its correspondence columns. Other editors who received the same letter did not so treat it. When tho now faro schedule was made I anticipated nowspaoer criticism and suggested to tho chairman 'hat an official reply to each criticism should ho Published as it appeared, thinking this the most effective and m the long run tho shortest method. Ho preferred, and not without jjpod reason, to wait for a week and reply to everything in one statement. Wlieu rushed with work on© mornins your reporter asked me for ft repO to two points. In view of tho chairman's decision, I declined, 6&ying that tho chairman would reply from tno clmir on tho following Monday and that no comment could be made in the meantime. I added that eveu if the chairman had not so decided, for mo to reply to all tho statements made would occupy more time than I cou.a spare just then. . In due course about 23 columns o" newspaper matter appeared, of which about eight were in your paper. The chairman's rojoinder occupied alitfut three columns, but all the papcis required that two of these columns bo paid for at advertising rates. > I am not quarrelling with this decision, but partly because of it I suggested to all the editors that they be good enough to allow an official footnote to be appended to all future letters; and also because tho public would bo able to read both at one sitting, instead of waiting for tho' Board's reply lator. When I saw you regarding this matter, I told you of the discussion I had had with the chairman as to procedure, and asked you, as a pressman of experience, which course, in the light of later events, would have been the wiser. You said that if I had attempted to deal as I desired with every letter as it appeared tho wholo of my time would have been occupied, and that tho chairman's courso was the better one. Yet knowing my personal desire, you write: "The simple fact is that the manager did not wish to answer the questions last week, and neither he nor the Board has attempted to answer them yet." You also comment about my short memory. May I ask what about your own! as I cannot believe you did mo that unfairness deliberately. In accordance with well established nsage an officer of a local body dots not, without special permission, write letters to newspapers. His reports should go to tho representatives elected by the people to deal with them. Otherwise I would have great pleasuro in answering any reasonable question that may be askod because, despite public feeling at tho moment, a complete answor could be made so far as I am concernod. I may add that this letter is sent yon with the full approval of the Chairman of the Board.—-Yours, etc., FRANK THOMPSON, Tramways Manager. Juno 3rd. (1) There waa nothing in Mr Thompson's letter to indicate that was not intended for .publication. It was addressed to the Editor, bore the heading under which it appeared in print, and contained no intimation anywhere that it was a "busin&» letter." Mr Thompson has had sufficient experience of newspaper correspondence to know that letters addressed "To the Editor" are regarded as sent for publication unless it is stated others wise. (2) Anything that yras Baid to Mr Thompson about the wisdom of the course he bad taken was said this week after the chairman had made'his reply, and the reply was in type. It liwi therefore nothing whatever to do with Mr Thompson's refusal to answer questions last week—a refusal that wo would explain to-day precisely as we did yesterdaj. (3) If Mr Thompson has not been given authority to write letters to the" newspapers, it was a waste of time to Bend us th© letter which we printed yesterday.—EtL "The Press."] . .. ' ■