WADESTOWN TRAMS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 539, 21 June 1909, Page 4

WADESTOWN TRAMS.

' Sir,—So far the Goldio's Brae controversy has been confined to the sterner sex. May I, as ono of tho women interested, bo allowed a short spaco inyour columns on the much-vexed question. Having read with interest Mr. Newton's and Mr. Cooke's lettcx3| it seems to mo that tho matters at issue, divested of its trimmings, is principally ono of pockets. Tho Goldie's Brao residents already have a tram service that suits them, at a cost of .2d; from, say', tho D.1.C., Arc they, likely 1 to want to pay an extra penny to save themselves a short climb?' Surely tie answer is obvious! To the possessors of, largo inoomes tho extra ponny is ncithor •here nor there, but thore are notvmany of. us on this hillside in the happy position of being able, to ■..treat- tho lumblo copper with indifference. ! .

« ¥*' ma 7 e '.exception to mv ...short climb," and refor mo.to'his estimated 200 feet." In reply I would state that tho proportion of Goldio's Brae residents living at or near tliat height is very small, and to those, living at 160 feet, 100 feet, and less tho climb is insignificant. From this point of view;tho.matter is not such a "simple proposition." Goldie's Brae, I submit, must bo taken as a whole, and it is obviously unfair to. attempt to, enforce taxation when tho benefit tc_ be received is of so doubtful'a. nature. Theso 'arguments apply, of course, only to the Saunders Lane route. If a service passing through Goldie's Brao be finally substituted, the.-whole 1 matter as it at present exists will die a natural deatb.r-I am, etc., ■ Juneie.:..:" '. ,::::'.'