MELROSE TRAMS.

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 34, 9 August 1905, Page 2

MELROSE TRAMS.

TO THE EDITOa. Sir, — The reason given by the Mayor for 'blocking the construction of th.9 authorised tramway extensions in Melrose is that they cannot be constructed for the amount voted. If his figures for theother lines are as incorreot <ts those for Kilbirnie, then indeed it is time the City Council enforced dte resolutions re calling for tenders and declined to allow them to be set at defiiance any longer 1 . What are the facts? (1) The tunnel can be constructed for £6000 kss than the estimate, the Hateitai Company having an offer to do "the work for £6500 less. (2) The cost of cable may be reduced ■at least £1776— £376 for work on account of Miramar, and £1400 for an error in the vaunted new estimates, an error which the 'Mayor ihas so far not thought fit to make public. (3) If the Usual 10 per cent, ior contingencies added by the Council' 6 own engineers be taken as sufficient! there is a saving of the £3052 on account of the further addition for contingencies inserted for some ainknown reason by the Towp CleTk, who is neither an enginer nor a practical contractor.. These three items— £6ooo, £1*776, and .£3052— -amount to a saving of £10,828. Add £1082 for the 10 per "cent, originally added to them, and to >hnve £11,910 in all. This completely wipes out the alleged deficit, without 'baking credit for any saving on the absurdly high sum now put down for compensation,' which could easily ba reduced some £2000. Why, then, have "tenders not been called ? Simply -because .there is no desire to 'have the work done. An additional £24,000 wae first sadd to be required for 'Melrose. This having bean laughed out of court, a new scheme was brought forward showing two new extensions 'and an extra double line, which Tequires ■only £22,000 more in all, clearly proving the incorrectness of the first set of now estimates, -which did not include ■the further extensions to coat £5000 or £6000. Thus the £24,000 was admittedly about £8000 wrong. Why this feverish desire for a loan, even 'if new ■and unauthorised works have to bo included to make it necessary ? Evidence can b6 adduced sufficient to prove to fehe Supreme Court that the Kilbirni© wdrk can 'be done for the amount voted. It now remains for the ratepayers to «p.ply for a mandamus in order that 'these vexatious delays may 'be terminated and the work as authorised by them proceeded with. I for one arii willing to join funds and forces with any others either from Kilbirnic, Island Bay, or Brooklyn, to this end. The> time for words >Js at an end ; they must now bo translated into action. — I am, etc., RATEPAYER. Kilbirnie, Bth August, 1905.