The Dominion THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1911. BETRAYING THE CITY'S INTERESTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1317, 21 December 1911, Page 4

The Dominion THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1911. BETRAYING THE CITY'S INTERESTS.

Citizens, must have been filled with amazement, yesterday when they read o£ the extraordinary demand of the Tramways Union for the dismissal of the tramway inspector, and the still more extraordinary decision of the Council, .on the casting vote of the Mayor, to comply with the Union's request. On the facts disclosed the decision of the Council was quite unwarranted, and utterly opposed to the maintenance of discipline and to the sound management of the tramways, and disregarded of the interests of citizens. The facts of the matter as set out in the papers laid before Councillors go to show that litspucrron Fuller, on November 9, when checking tickets, found that a lady passenger was in possession of- r a"ticket which, according to the number on the conductor's waybill, could not have been legitimately issued on that particular trip. The conductor insisted that the inspector had misread the waybill, but this was disputed by the inspector. The passenger wild received the particular ticket—tho cause of the trouble—had no doubt that the tickct she showed the inspector was the one given to her by the conductor. The matter was reported to the Tramways Manager who, after investigation, dismissed the conductor,. ; Appeal was made, and after hearing evidence the Appeal Board gave judgment to tho effect "that the appeal must be upheld, as the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the charge that had been made." On the strength of this decision the Tramways Union requested the immediate removal of the inspector "on account of Ms questionable methods of informing his duty as an inspector," and the City Council, on the casting v6te of tho Mayor, and in face .of the strong protest" of the Tramways Manager, obeyed the orders of the Tramways Union.

No one, wo imagine, would wish | to sen injustice done to an.v tramway employee or to any. employee of the" city. No one' wishes to see an unjust or tyrannical employee of the city terrorising over those under liiiii. But equally the city is not going to permit a body of nie». Sim- ! ply because they are organised and | exercise certain voting strength at election times, to run the city's business through the medium of voteseeking City Councillors. TheTramways Manager, in his report to the City Council, placed the position very clearly before Councillors. He wrote: "Although Inspector l'uller is not gifted with a great amount of tact he has proved himself to 1* thoroughly conscientious, am! the most, efficient member of our ticket inspecting staff. In eases of ticket irregularity detected by jii in which appear to be suspicious, lie invariably puts the ense in the best light for any mail whom hn believes to be honest, from evidence received from various sources, .1. regret to say that there is undoubtedly a considerable amount of malpractice vith regard to ticket sales, at present carried on by certain conductors, who manage so that the irregularity is most difficult nf detection. If Inspector fuller is removed from the ticket inspecting staff it will be impassible to get inspectors to carry out their duties efficiently and, indeed, I have no hesitation in saying that, unlpss the ticket inspecting staff aro supported by the committee,, tlicy might as well bo eliminated." Now these are the views of the responsible head of the Tramways Department, and what the city will want to know is what justification Messrs. AVilford, M'Laren, Fletcher, Hindmarsh, Barber, and Fitzgerald—all candidates at the recent Parliamentary , election—can offer for over-riding the judgment of their responsible official. The _ fact that must not be lost' sight of is that the inspector merely did his duty in reporting a suspicious incident. He did not dismiss the conductor. The Appeal Board did not uphold the appeal on tho ground that the suspicion of the inspector was groundless, but simply held that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the charge. That there wns ground for suspicion and that the inspector did his duly in reporting the matter no one can fairly dispute. And yet lie is lo be punished and degraded for doing his duty, ami the. whole system of inspectorship made a farce at the dictation of a body of employees who apparently realise the weakness of a number of the men who have been appointed by the citizens to manage their affairs. We must congratulate, those Councillors who made a stand for justice for their inspector and for the assertion o : f the" right of the city

to have its a ffa;-c conducted mi sound iind proper lines. They might easily have won a little cheap popularity from the Tramways Union by sacrificing ihe interests of citizens and neglecting their obligation to see that the tramways are managed in the interests of the whole community and riot for the benefit of any particular section. Wo trust that the public will not lose sight of what has been done in this matter and who are responsible for it.