"TRANSPORT AND PUBLIC"

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 35, 10 February 1926, Page 9

"TRANSPORT AND PUBLIC"

CIVIC-LEAGUE REPLY. ;;|

(To the Editor.)

/ Sir, —Your sub-leader under the above heading, commenting on our re■port re the Motor-omnibus Regulations* [mo have read with interest. If we went [jtoo far,in stating positively that "the [licensing authority should be independent of those engaged in passenger ['transport" it was due to our having in !mind the rule that "a person should ■ not be judge in his own case." The i regulations as framed would place the iloeal authority in the position of judge ;in a case in which it is a party. We irecogniae it would be difficult to appoint an independent licensing authority and yet leave the local authority with full jpower of control over the streets which it constructs and maintains. There is ell the more reason why the power of "the licensing authority should be limited if owing to practical difficulty the local authority is to exercise such [power, being 'at the same time an interested party in competition with lethers who will be subject to the conIjAitiocs of.license. You say the City Council, besides representing the ratepayers, also repre■enti the passengers who patronise the buses. Theoretically that is so, but in practice we fear it is very likely to\ be overlooked. The experience we have had with reference to the appointment |pf an appeal board in connection with jjthe electrical change-over leads us to iafllrm that the City Council is very imuch disposed to regard the citizens as 'a body quite apart from the CorporaIjtion. As Mayor and councillors the Siublic representatives not only repreent the city in its corporate capacity, jjbut are assumed to represent the citi- ■ lens individually, who, as consumers of ,electrical power and light occupy an analogous position to the motor-omni-J>us propositions.

In is well known that, the council has shown little concern over the setting . up of a practical appeal board to give iassurance of fair play to the citizen [consumers. If the council appoints its jDwn representative it seems to be -taken that it has no other concern in |;the matter. This is a concrete instance !of where the council has in practice ineglected to represent the citizens or [interested itself to sec that they havea practical method of appeal. There .is reason to fear that the same tcn.dency would bo shown towards tho passengers who patronise the buses. It is 'easy to recite tho formula that 1 "the .Corporation consists of the Ma^or, councillors, and citizens," but in pracslice tho elected persons arc very much to think and act as if the Corjporations consists entirely of tho JMayor, councillors, and officials. Even 'amongst the general run of citizens the custom is to think and refer to the 'Corporation as being distinct and apart from themselves.

■ For such reason it appears to us that in matters which affect business relations between the local authority and 'private citizens it is not desirable that too much power should vest in the representative and official side of this authority. We do not wish to see any outside authority brought in to exercise power over our city's affairs either in respect to street traffic or in any other direction. At the same time we look for justice to bo done to tho individual citizens in their relations with tho corporate body. Such reasoning led us to express the opinion that the licensing authority should be independent; that .the individual as well as tho corporate Interests should h'avo fair treatment. A tribunal of appeal such as you suggest might meet the wants of the situation. f-On behalf of the executive, - P. M'LAREN,