THE TRAMWAY TROUBLE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1108, 22 April 1911, Page 4

THE TRAMWAY TROUBLE.

c The proposal submitted to the City Council on Thursday evening by the Mayor and his fellow-members on the Tramway Sub-Committee, that the report, of an outside engineer should be obtained upon the city's tramway undertaking, appears, on the face of it, to have boon premature. The reasons put forward by Mr.. Wilfoed were in themselves quite unconvincing, but we recognise that his "Worship hinted at other reasons which he did not disclose and the merit of which we, of course, cannot assess, :.;A.pparently.'thqniembcrs of the Council, when that body went into committee, were not very much influenced by them, for councillors failed to support the sub-com-mittee's proposal. While the proposal was thus shelved, for the time Loing at least, the questions raised during the discussion were of importance, and some of them were shrouded in a. measure of obscurity which .it is to be hoped will soon be dissipated. As regards the general position, there are one or two patent facts which are worth a little attention. The anxiety which the sub-committee is displaying in regard to the tramways is a direct outcome of the demand of the tramway employees for increased wages. In supporting this demand the employees took it upon themselves to criticise the traffic- management of the tramways. The Mayor, and the subcommittee, curiously enough, appear to have accepted in its entirety the position thus created. As a result they arc now wading in deep waters. For instance, supporting on Thursday evening his proposal to import an engineer to report on the tramways, Me. Wilford mentioned that with the other members of the Tramway Sub-Committee he had experienced extreme difficulty in assessing the relative value of two rosters, one presented by the Tramway Union and the other by the officers of the City Tramway Department. One must needs applaud the Mayor's industry, but this little incident will serve to indicate how far his Worship, in his anxiety to cope with an admittedly difficult situation, has drifted from the recognised path of sound procedure. There is absolutely no reason why the Mayor or any councillor should descend to consideration of technical details out of regard for the welfare of the city tramways. There are perfectly plainand straightforward methods by which the members of a municipal authority may discharge their duty in regard to such matters as tramw.ay management. The handling of technical details should be left absolutely in the hands of responsible officers. The Council may efficiently discharge its duty by laying clown the general line of policy on which the tramways are to be run, by exercising a general supervision and by comparing from time to time the net results attained with the results of similar undertakings conducted elsewhere. The interference of a layman with the technical duties of a qualified officer is objectionable, in the first place because it cannot possibly be efficient interference; and secondly because such interference has a bad moral effect, not only on the officers directly affected, but on the whole staff. We are inclined to think, however, that while Me. Wilford's proposal was premature and in some respects objectionable, the result of his action will, in the end, prove beneficial. The fact that the Council has decided to obtain a report from its engineer should serve a useful purpose in affording that officer an opportunity of placing before the public a full statement of the position _ of the tramways from the managerial point of view. Such shortcomings as exist in connection with traffic arrangements may possibly then be found to be due quite as much to the action or inaction of the Council as t6 the work of its officers; but in any case it should provide something definite for the Council to act on in instituting any inquiry should that course then appear necessary.